Recovery Plan for Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem

Home , Alabama shiner, Amber darter, Amphigyra, Antrorbis, Black mudalia, Blue shiner

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia MOBILE RIVER BASIN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM

RECOVERY PLAN

Prepared by

Jackson, Mississippi Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and

Mobile River Basin Coalition Planning Committee

for

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Atlanta, Georgia

Approved: Regional Director, U S if~sh and Wildlife Service

Date: ___ 2cW MOBILE RIVER BASIN COALITION PLANNING COMMITTEE

Chairman Bill Irby Brad McLane Fort James Corp. Alabama Rivers Alliance

Daniel Autry John Moore Union Camp Boise Cascade

Matt Bowden Rick Oates Baich & Bingham Alabama Pulp & Paper Council

Robert Bowker Chris Oberholster U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Nature Conservancy

Melvin Dixon Brian Peck Pulp & Paper Workers U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers

Roger Gerth Robert Reid, Jr. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Alabama Audubon Council

Marvin Glass, Jr. John Richburg McMillan Blodel Packaging Corp. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service John Harris USDANatural Resources Conservation Gena Todia Service Wetland Resources

Paul Hartfield Ray Vaughn U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coosa-Tallapoosa Project

Jon Hornsby Glenn Waddell Alabama Department of Conservation Baich & Bingham

Maurice James Jack Wadsworth U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Farmer

Laurie Johnson Alabama River Corporation

ii Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are sometimes prepared with the assistance ofrecovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Plans are reviewed by the public and are submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Service. Objectives ofthe plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address otherpriorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in developing the plan, other than the Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by newfindings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.

By approving this recovery plan, the Regional Director certifies that the data used in its development represent the best scientific and commercial information available at the time it was written. Copies ofall documents reviewed in development ofthe plan are available in the administrative record, located at the Jackson Field Office in Jackson, Mississippi.

Literature citations should read as follows:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan. Atlanta, GA. 128 pp.

Additional copies may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Phone: 301/492-6403 or 800/582-3421

Fees for recovery plans vary, depending on the number ofpages.

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A Technical/Agency Draft Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Plan) was prepared by the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, Field Office, and released for public review in September 1994. Individuals who provided valuable suggestions, comments, and feedback during the initial development ofthe Plan, included: Dr. George Folkerts, AuburnUniversity; Dr. Richard Neves and Noel Burkhead, U.S. Geological Survey; and Dr. Randy Haddock and Don Elder, Cahaba River Society.

In December 1994, the Alabama Department ofEconomic and Community Affairs, Office of Water Resources, requested a meeting among the Basin’s stakeholders and the Service to discuss the draft recovery plan, its implementation, private and State concerns with the plan, the Endangered Species Act, and the Service’s past and future actions in the Basin. Participating stakeholders included State and Federal government agencies, environmental organizations, landowners, and numerous business and industry representatives. Bimonthly meetings were conducted over the next 18 months to exchange information concerning the values and status of the Basin’s biota (animal and plant life), human uses and values ofits rivers and watersheds, and current regulations and programs to protect and manage the Basin’s resources. During these discussions, participants agreed to form the Mobile River Basin Coalition to provide a forum for all interest groups who have a stake in the Basin. The purpose ofthe Coalition is to work together to develop and promote good management ofthe Basin’s rivers and streams. Among other activities, the Coalitionhas worked with the Service to review and edit drafts ofthe recovery plan. Numerous individuals, agencies, organizations, and businesses haveparticipated in the Coalition and contributed to this final recovery plan.

The information provided in this Plan was compiled from a variety ofsources. All who have contributed to documenting the remarkable diversity of the Mobile River Basin aquatic fauna (animals) and flora (plants), as well as those who now document its decline and work for its recovery, are gratefully acknowledged.

The cover illustrations and plates were drawn by Sam Beibers, Beibers Creative Arts, Jackson, Mississippi. The cover illustration depicts, from top to bottom, a goidline darter (Percina aurolineata), Cherokee clubtail dragonfly (Gomphus consanguis), paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), Alabama red-bellied turtles (Pseudemys alabamensis), cahaba Ii lv (Hymenocallis coronaria), and a stirrupshell (Quadrula stapes).

iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current Status: The Mobile River Basin (Basin) supports a highly diverse aquatic flora and fauna, especially manifested in its freshwater fishes, mussels, and snails. The Basin’s endemic (native to a region and found nowhere else) fauna includes 40 fishes, 33 mussels, 110 aquatic snails, as well as turtles, aquatic insects, and crustaceans. The fauna and their habitats have been extensively affected over the years by impoundment, channelization, mining, dredging, and pollution from point (specific) and nonpoint (diffuse) sources. As a result, at least 17 mussels and 37 aquatic snails are presumed extinct, most within the past few decades. At the time this recovery plan was released for public review in 1998, there were 32 aquatic animal and plant species in the Basin that were protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These included 2 turtles, 10 fish, 17 mussels, 1 snail, and 2 plants. Since 1998, an additional seven aquatic species, six snails and the Alabama sturgeon, have received protection under the Act. We will develop an addendum to the Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan, which will include specific recovery criteria for the six snails, and make it available for public review and comment in the near future. An additional recovery plan will be developed specifically for the Alabama sturgeon. In the interim, these seven species are directly benefitted by the actions implemented throughthe Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan and are included in this final plan.

This document is currently the sole recovery plan for 22 aquatic species, including 4 fish, 11 mussels, and 7 snails respectively, as follows (E endangered, T = threatened): Alabama sturgeon (E), Cherokee darter (T), Etowah darter (E), goldline darter (T), Alabama moccasinshell (T), Coosa moccasinshell (E), dark pigtoe (E), fine-lined pocketbook (T), orange-nacre mucket (T), ovate clubshell (E), southern acornshell (E), southern clubshell (E), southern pigtoe (E), triangular kidneyshell (E), upland combshell (E), cylindrical lioplax (E), flat pebblesnail (E), lacy elimia (T), painted rocksnail (T), plicate rocksnail (E), round rocksnail (T), and tulotoma snail (E). For profiles for each ofthese species, see Appendix A ofthis recovery plan. This Plan has also been developed to complement existing recovery plans for the other 17 listed aquatic species in the Basin.

Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors: Each ofthe listed species within the Basin is unique in some aspect ofits life history or habitat requirements, yet two factors are common to all: adaptation to some form offlowing water habitat; and dependence on habitat stability, including substrate (surface where a plant or animal grows, rests, or is attached) and water quality. Activities affecting these basic requirements represent the primary obstacles to survival and recovery for most ofthe Basin’s listed species.

Recovery Objectives: To protect the Basin’s native aquatic fauna and flora through aquatic ecosystem management (managing for all aquatic resources on a basin-wide scale). Specific recovery objectives for the 22 species are as follows:

Tulotoma snail - reclassify from endangered to threatened, and delist the species.

v Goldline darter - delist.

Cherokee ler - delist.

Etowah - delist.

11 mussel species - neither reclassification nor delisting appear to be a realistic goal for any ofthese species at this time. Preventing the extinction ofthose listed as endangered, and arresting the continuing decline ofthose listed as threatened are the recovery objectives for these species.

Alabama sturgeon - to be developed.

Six snail species - to be developed.

Recovery Criteria: The tulotoma snail will be considered for reclassification to threatened status when recent studies related to the status ofthe species have been reviewed and we confirm that a stable or increasing population occurs in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam. The tulotoma snail will be considered for delisting from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants when the following criteria are met:

1. Four ofthe six known Coosa River tributary snail populations (Choccolocco, Hatchet, Kelly, and Weogufka Creeks) are shown to be stable or increasing for at least five years, 2. Community developed watershed plans are implemented to protect and monitor water and habitat quality in the four targeted watersheds, 3. A formal agreement has been developed with Alabama Power Company to maintain base flows below Jordan Dam that are protective for the snail.

The goldline darter will be considered for delisting when the following criteria are met:

1. The known populations ofthe species are shown to be stable or increasing for a period ofat least five years, 2. There has been a demonstrated trend in water quality improvement in the reach of the Cahaba River occupied by this fish, and 3. Community developed watershed plans are implemented to protect and monitor water and habitat quality in all occupied watersheds.

The Cherokee and Etowah darters will be considered for delisting when the following criteriaare met:

1. The known populations ofthe species are shown to be stable or increasing for a period of at least five years, and 2. Community developed watershed plans are implemented to protect and monitor water and habitat quality in all occupied watersheds.

vi Actions Needed:

1. Protect habitat integrity and quality. 2. Consider options for river and stream mitigation strategies that give high priority to avoidance and restoration. 3. Promote voluntary stewardship to reduce nonpoint pollution from private land use. 4. Encourage and support community based watershed stewardship planning and action. 5. Develop and implement public education programs and materials defining ecosystem management and watershed stewardship responsibilities. 6. Conduct basic research on endemic aquatic species and apply the results ofthis research toward management and protection. 7. Develop and implement technology for maintaining and propagating endemic species in captivity. 8. Reintroduce aquatic species into restored habitats, as appropriate. 9. Monitor listed species population levels and distribution and review ecosystem management strategy. 10. Coordinate ecosystem management actions and species recovery efforts.

Recovery Costs: Cost of full and appropriate implementation of Federal and State regulatory authorities will be absorbed under existing programs. Implementation ofrecovery tasks for which cost estimates can be made over the initial 3-year period ofrecovery effort total $2,565,000.

Date ofRecovery: Estimated date ofdelisting of the tulotoma snail, the Cherokee darter, Etowah darter, and goldline darter is 2010, if recovery criteria are met.

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 Background 4 Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts and Their Effects on Biota 6 Current and Future Threats to the Basin’s Imperiled Aquatic Species 14 Conservation Measures 15

Human Demographic Trends and Implications for Imperiled Aquatic Species . 16 Recovery Strategy 16

PART II: RECOVERY 21 A. Ecosystem Management Objective 21 B. Recovery Objectives and Criteria 21 Tulotoma Snail 21 Goldline Darter 22 Cherokee and Etowah Darters 22 Eleven Mussel Species 22 C. Narrative Outline 23 D. Literature Cited 33

PART III: IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 39

PART IV: APPENDICES 44 A. Listed Species Covered by this Plan 45

Species Accounts including Recovery Objectives and Criteria . . 46 B. Listed Species with Separate Recovery Plans 69 Species Accounts including Recovery Objectives and Criteria.. 70 C. Candidate Species and Species ofConcern 88 D. Extirpated and Extinct Species 90 E. References for Additional Information 92 F. Ongoing Environmental and Conservation Programs 102 G. List ofRecipients 105 H. Summary of Comments Received on the Draft Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan 118

PART V: PLATES Endangered and Threatened Mollusks ofthe Mobile River Basin 122

viii PART I

INTRODUCTION

“Theperfectly adjustedperish with their environments.”

- Loren Eiseley, author and anthropologist

This recovery plan has been developed to address the immediate recovery objectives of22 aquatic species endemic to the Mobile River Basin (Basin) that have been recently listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (Table 1, Appendix A), and to complement recovery plans previously developed for an additional 17 listed aquatic species in the Basin (Table 2, Appendix B). Descriptions, ranges, life histories, and other information concerning each ofthese 39 species can be found in Appendices A and B.

Part I ofthe Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Plan) summarizes historic and current information on the Basin’s biota and their aquatic habitats, and modem human impacts on the ecosystem (all components, living and nonliving, ofan ecological community, considered together as one unit). The Plan provides a basic foundation for discussions and negotiationsthat must occur at both ecosystem and watershed levels if listed aquatic species are to be protected and recovered. Part II presents recovery objectives and criteria for the species, and provides an outline ofeconomically and scientifically practical recovery tasks.

The ecosystem approach to recovery proposed in the Plan acknowledgesthat irreversible changes to extensive portions ofthe Basin have occurred to meet human needs, and these changes have resulted in natural resource losses. It emphasizes the uniqueness and value of the Basin’s imperiled native species and the aquatic and riparian habitats on which they depend. The Plan identifies the threats currently affecting these habitats and their biota. It also recognizes that humans and their activities are integral components ofthe ecosystem, and that recovery strategies and actions must allow for sustainable economic growth and other human needs.

The authority to address management needs for listed species from an ecosystem perspective is identified as a central purpose of the Act in section 2(b), where it states, “... to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend may be conserved...”

1 TABLE 1: LISTED AQUATIC SPECIES IN THE MOBILE R1vE1~ BASIN WITHOUT EXISTING EECOVERYPLANS

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status

FISH Alabama sturgeon Scaphirhynchussuttkusi Endangered

Cherokee darter Etheostoma scotti Threatened

Etowah darter Etheostoma etowahae Endangered

Goidline darter Percina aurolineata Threatened

MUSSELS Alabama moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus Threatened

Coosa moccasinshell Medionidus parvulus Endangered Darkpigtoe Pleurobemafurvum Endangered

Fine-lined pocketbook Lampsilis altilis Threatened

Orange-nacre mucket Lampsilisperovalis Threatened

Ovate clubshell Pleurobemaperovatum Endangered Southern acornshell Epioblasma othcaloogensis Endangered

Southern clubshell Pleurobema deciswn Endangered

Southern pigtoe Pleurobemageorgianum Endangered

Triangular kidneyshell Ptychobranchusgreeni Endangered

Upland combshell Epioblasma metastriata Endangered

SNAILS Cylindrical lioplax Lioplax cyclostomaformis Endangered Flat pebblesnail Lepyriuin showalteri Endangered

Lacy elimia Elimia crenatella Threatened

Painted rocksnail Leptoxis taeniata Threatened

Plicate rocksnail Leptoxisplicata Endangered

Round rocksnail Leptoxis ampla Threatened

Tulotoma snail Tulotoma magnfica Endangered

2 TABLE 2: LISTED AQUATIC SPECIES IN THE MOBILE RIVER BASIN WITH EXISTING RECOVERY PLANS

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status

REPTILES Alabama redbelly turtle Pseudemys alabamensis Endangered Flattened musk turtle Siernoiherus depressus Threatened

FISH Amber darter Percina aniesella Endangered

Blue shiner Cyprinella caerulea Threatened

Cahaba shiner Noiropis cahabae Endangered Conasauga Iogpercb Percinajenkinsi Endangered

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi Threatened

Pygmy sculpin Coitus pygmaeus Threatened Watercress darter Etheostoma nuchale Threatened

MUSSELS

Black clubshell Pleurobemacurium Endangered

Flat pigtoe Pleurobemamarshalli Endangered Heavy pigtoe Pleurobemataitianum Endangered Inflated heelsplitter Potamilus inflalus Threatened Southern combshell Epioblasmapenita Endangered Stirrupshell Quadrulastapes Endangered

PLANTS

Harperella Piilimnium nodosum Endangered

Kral‘s water-plantain Sagitiaria secund~folia Threatened

3 Background

The Mobile River Basin is significant for its size, location, and its exceptional diversity of natural habitats. The Basin includes seven major river systems draining portions often physiographic provinces and subdivisions in four states, and forms the largest Gulf Coast drainage east ofthe Mississippi River (Figure 1). Defined by their soils, geology, topography, and other features, each physiographic province imparts unique chemical and physical characteristics to the waters flowing through them. As such, the Basin provides a wealth of habitats for aquatic plants and animals.

Ancient geologic events such as the rise and fall of the land mass and the ebb and rise ofthe ocean shoreline, resulted in river and tributary convergence (joining together) between the Basin and surrounding drainages. This allowed repeated opportunities for immigration (movement into an area in which one is not native) by aquatic species from the Mississippi, Atlantic, Tennessee, Apalachicola and other drainages into the Mobile Basin. The isolation of these species within the Basin’s diverse aquatic habitats eventually ledto high numbers ofunique species found nowhere else in the world (endemic species).

The uniqueness ofthe Basin’s aquatic fauna was first recognized in the 19th century (Boschung 1992, Stein 1976, van der Schalie 1981). In the early 1800’s, naturalist explorers traveled to the Basin and made collections for study and description (e.g., Conrad in 1832-33, Agassiz in 1854). Other scholars corresponded with amateur naturalists living in the Basin requesting samples ofsnails, mussels, and fishes, among which numerous unknown species were encountered (e.g., I. Lea, whose publications on the Basin’s fauna range from 1827 through 1874). In the first decade ofthe 20th century, a consortium ofnorthern malacologists (scientists who study mollusks which includes snails and mussels) (including B. Walker, G.H. Clapp, and H.A. Pilsbry) employed H.H. Smith, a naturalist at the University of Alabama, to collect snails and mussels from throughout the Mobile and adjacent drainages (van der Schalie 1981). Historic collections resulting from these efforts are preserved at museums around the country, including the National Museum ofNatural History, Philadelphia Academy ofScience, University of Michigan Museum ofZoology, Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, University ofFlorida Museum ofZoology, and Camegie Museum ofZoology. These museum collections form the foundation of our knowledge of past distributions ofthe Basin’s aquatic species.

Sporadic collections and publications describing the Basin’s aquatic communities continued through the mid-1900’s. However, scientific interest intensified during the 1960’s and 1970’s due to developments in the fields ofecology and systematic biology, and because of requirements of new Federal and State environmental legislation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Alabama Water Pollution Control Act, etc.). As a result, hundreds ofsurveys and studies have been conducted by university scientists, State and Federal agencies, and industrial interests during the past 30 years on various aspects ofthe Basin’s aquatic biota (see Appendix E for a partial list). These studies have further revealed the

4 FIGURE 1: MOBILE RIVER BASIY

MS Dams

5 Basin’s unique biodiversity legacy, with new species still being described (e.g., vermilion darter (Etheostoma chermocki), Etowah darter, Cherokee darter, goldline darter, etc.).

The diversity ofthe Basin’s freshwater animals is truly astounding, representing a large percentage ofthe aquatic fauna ofNorth America (Table 3). For example, almost 40 percent of North America’s aquatic turtles (17 species) inhabit the drainages ofthe Basin (Lydeard and Mayden 1995). The Basin ranks third in the nation in variety offishes (160 species) (Swift et al. 1986), and is among the top ten river basins in the world in diversity offreshwater mussels (75 species). The Basin also provides habitat for the richest aquatic snail fauna in the world (120 species) (Bogan et al. 1995). As noted earlier, many ofthese aquatic animals are endemic to the Basin (Table 3).

The Ba s aquatic resources have also beenvital to the development ofthe region by providing tremen~;us economic and recreational benefits. Since European settlement, streams and rivers have been variously used or modified fortransportation, water supply, electricity production, irrigation, flood control, and waste disposal. As a result of such uses, significant changes in the nature and quality ofaquatic habitats have occurred during the past century.

The surveys and studies conducted during the past few decades have revealed the severity of impacts on the aquatic fauna (Table 4). The Basin is noted for its high numberof aquatic species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act, or are species ofconcern that may become candidates for listing (Lydeard and Mayden 1995; also Appendices A, B, and C). Imperiled species (which include Federally listed and candidate species and species ofconcern) are now found at all levels ofthe Basin’s aquatic food chain, and include plants, insects, crustaceans, snails, mussels, fishes and turtles.

Over halfof all known or presumed aquatic animal extinctions in the United States since European settlement have been freshwater mussels and snails unique to the Mobile Basin (Table 5, Appendix D). In an extinction event unparalleled in the history ofthe United States, many of these endemic mussels and snails have disappeared within the past few decades.

Aquatic Ecosystem Impacts and Their Effects on Biota

Each ofthe listed aquatic species within the Basin is unique in some aspect ofits life history or habitat requirements, yet two factors are common to all: adaptation to some form offlowing water habitat, and dependence on habitat stability, including substrate (i.e., channel banks and bed) and water quality. The current condition of the Basin’s aquatic ecosystem and the species it supports is the result of significant and widespread changes over time in flow, substrate, and/or water quality in river and stream habitats. Channel modification and water pollution have gradually eliminated those native species that are dependent upon a narrow range offlowing water habitat conditions from extensive portions of their former ranges within the Basln.

6 TABLE 3: MOBILE RIVERBASIN AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY LEGACY

Total number of species historically known/species endemic to the drainage

Turtles Fishes Mussels Snails Drainage Area (square kin) (square miles)

U.S. and Canada* 44 792 297 342

Mobile River Basin 17/3 160/40 75/33 120/110 110,701 43,173

Apalachicola River Basin 13/1 86/6 36/5 30/15 45,951 17,921

Pearl River Basin 13/1 106/0 7/0 10/0 21,336 8,321

* Total number of species historically known from the U.S. and Canada. Sources:

Bogan et at. 1995 Burch 1989 Butler 1989 and pers. comm. Harris 1990 Hartfield 1988 Lydeard and Mayden 1995 Mettee et at. 1996 Swift etal. 1986 Williams et at. 1992

7 TABLE 4: STATUS OF THE MOBILE RIVERBASIN AQUATIC BIOTA

Amphibians Reptiles Fishes Mussels Snails Plants Insects/ Decapods

Extinct 0 0 0 l4~’~ 36~’~ 0 0

Extirpated 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Endangered~2~ (E) 0 1 5 13 4 1 0 Threatened~2~ (T) 0 1 6 4 0 1 0

Candidates (C) 1 0 0 1 1 0 0

Species of concern~3~ (SC) 0 3 9 4 23 1 21

TOTAL NUMBER OF IMPERILED SPECIES (E+T+C±SC)= 100

Since publication of the 1998 draft ecosystem plan, small populations of 3 mussels and I snail that were presumed extinct have been discovered in northwest Georgia.

(2) Federally listed aquatic species includes 22 species covered specifically by this Plan (Table 1) and 17 species with previously developed plans (Table 2).

(3) Previous “C2 candidates” now referred to as species of concern.

8 TABLE 5: COMPARISON OF ALL KNOWN U.S. AQUATIC FAUNAL EXTINCTIONS SINCE EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT WITH EXTINCTIONS 114 THE MOBILE RIVER BASIN

U.S. Total Mobile River Basin

Amphibians and Reptiles 6 0

Freshwater Fishes 18 0

Freshwater Mussels 28 14(1)

Freshwater Snails 36 36(1)

TOTAL 89 51

(‘) Since publication ofthe 1998 draft ecosystem plan, small populations of 3 mussels and I snail that were presumed extinct have been discovered innorthwest Georgia.

Sources:

Natural Heritage Network Central Databases The Nature Conservancy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994 Boganetal. 1995

DAMS constructed for navigation, water supply, electricity, recreation, and flood control have impounded more than 1,700 kilometers (kin) (1,100 miles (mi)) ofriver and stream habitat in the Basin (Figure 1, Table 6). Impoundment results in burial ofrock or other coarse substrate habitats by accumulating fine sediments, reduced velocities in impounded reaches, changes in current patterns below dams, and changes in water quality both above and below dams (Gore 1994).

Impounded waters have eliminated many native species from extensive portions of the Basin’s larger rivers, and virtually all ofthe Basin’s snail and mussel extinctions are a direct or indirect result ofdam construction and river impoundment. For example, a series of dams impounded the Coosa River from near its mouth at Wetumpka, Alabama, to beyond the Georgia/Alabama State line, resulting in the extinction of more than 20 aquatic snails endemicto the Coosa River drainage (Stein 1976, Bogan et al. 1995).

9 The present primary adverse impact ofexisting dams and their impounded waters in the Basin is to form barriers to the movement of many species offishes, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans, fragmenting populations and eliminating genetic interchange between them. As a result, imperiled aquatic species surviving in the Basin’s unimpounded tributaries and mainstem river reaches have become isolated and virtually without avenues of immigration and emigration.

CHANNELIZATION, the straightening, deepening, and/or enlarging ofstream and river channels, has occurred to some degree in every major river system ofthe Basin. Stream channelization has been particularly concentrated in the Tombigbee River drainage, where approximately 320 km (200 mi) ofstreams have been channelized (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1990). The effects of channelization on stream ecosystems include accelerated erosion; altered depth; and loss ofhabitat diversity, substrate stability, and riparian canopy (Brookes 1994). Such changes in habitat cause changes in the aquatic community, including the loss ofspecies, reduced biomass, and shifts in species dominance (Hubbard et al. 1994).

Past channelization projects often caused headcutting (progressive channel bed and bank erosion that gradually advances upstream from a channelized reach and/or up the tributaries of a channelized stream). The aquatic community response to headcuts is similar to that of channelization, i.e., loss ofdiversity and biomass (Hartfield 1993). Headcuts are not only detrimental to aquatic and riparian communities, but also cause considerable offsite destruction ofpublic and private property (Hartfield 1993).

Channelization of natural streams in the Basin has diminished in recent years as the detrimental effects ofthe practice have become recognized and weighed against the benefits. However, maintenance ofchannelized river and stream reaches and, more rarely, new channelization projects are still occasionally conducted for flood protection in heavily populated areas (e.g., Luxapalila Creek, Columbus, Mississippi) or areas ofhigh agricultural use (e.g., East Fork ofthe Tombigbee River tributaries, Mississippi; upper Luxapalila Creek, Alabama). Such projects now normally include grade control structures or other efforts to prevent headcutting; however, loss of habitat still occurs in the channelized reach. The present primary adverse impact of channelization is the continuing geomorphic response of stream and river channels in previously channelized systems (including channel erosion, filling, and headcutting).

DREDGING for navigation or gravel mining physically destroys benthic (live on the river/stream bottom) organisms and their habitats, and may eliminate habitat and prey for fishes and turtles. Dredging may also initiate or perpetuate upstream channel instability and erosion. In-channel dredge spoil disposal may cover benthic species and theirhabitats and/or contribute to temporary downstream turbidity.

10 TABLE 6: MAJORDAMS AND ASSOCIATED RESERVOIRS OF THE MOBILE BASIN*

DAM DRAINAGE COUNTY, STATE SURFACE AREA APPROX. LENGTH OR RESERVOIR NAME Hectares (Acres) Kilometers (Miles) J Coffeeville Tombigbee R. Choctaw, AL 3553 (8800) 156 (97)

Demopolis Tombigbee R. Marengo, AL 4037 (10000) 85 (53)

Howell Heflin Tombigbee R. Sumter, AL 2584 (6400) 73 (45)

Tom Bevill Tombigbee R. Pickens, AL 3351(8300) 45 (27.9)

John C. Stennis Tombigbee R. Lowndes, MS 3597 (8910) 14 (8.4)

Aberdeen Lake Tombigbee R. Monroe, MS 1664 (4121) 23 (14)

Bluff Lake Noxubee R. Noxubee, MS 404 (1000) 4 (2.3)

Bankhead Black Warrior R. Tuscaloosa, AL 3714 (9200) 105 (65)

Holt Black Warrior R. Tuscaloosa, AL 1331 (3296) 31(19)

W. B. Oliver Black Warrior R. Tuscaloosa,AL within banks 15 (9)

Wanior Black Warrior R. Hale, AL 3149 (7800) 126 (78)

Lewis Smith Sipsey Fk. Walker, AL 8559 (21200) 61(37.8) Black Warrior R.

Tuscaloosa North River Tuscaloosa,AL 2376 (5885) 40 (25) Black Warrior R.

Claibome Alabama R. Monroe, AL 2362 (5850) 97 (60)

Millers Ferry Alabama R. Wilcox, AL 6944 (17200) 166 (103)

Robert F. Henry Alabama R. Autauga, AL 4966 (12300) 142 (88)

Purdy Little CahabaR. Shelby, AL 424 (1050) 6(3.7)

H. Neely Henry Coosa R. Calhoun, AL 4522(11200) 93 (58)

Jordan/Bouldin Coosa R. Elmore, AL 2745 (6800) 25 (15.5)

Lay Coosa R. Shelby, AL 4845 (12000) 75 (46.5)

Logan Martin Coosa R. St. Clair, AL 6162 (15263) 75 (47)

Mitchell CoosaR. Chillon, AL 2362 (5850) 23 (14.2)

Weiss CoosaR. Cherokee, AL 12192 (30200) 85(53)

Carters Coosawattee R. Murray, GA 1300 (3220) 9 (5.8)

Carters re.reg. Coosawattee R. Murray, GA 351 (870) 0.6 (0.4)

Allatoona Etowab R. Bartow, GA 4788(11860) 33 (20.5)

Martin TallapoosaR. Tallapoosa,AL 16149 (40000) 50(3])

Thurlow Tallapoosa R. Elmore, AL 221 (547) 4 (2.7)

Yates Tallapoosa R. Elmore, AL 807 (2000) 10 (6)

Harris Tallapoosa R. Randolph, AL 4304 (10661) 39 (24) Ibe —1ennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Canal Section and some small headwater structures that have minimal impact on imperiled species are not included.

11 The Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Alabama and Mobile rivers have been gradually developed for navigation for more than a century. Deepening channels for navigation involved the removal of shallow shoals and other historic habitat for species that are now imperiled. Today, however, most navigation dredging consists ofremoving seasonally accumulated sediments in previously dredged reaches to maintain developed channels. Maintenance dredging and spoil disposal within such areas rarely adversely impact imperiled species, since these areas are too unstable for most of these species (Biggins 1994).

Gravel armored river bottoms provide important habitat for imperiled as well as commercial and sport species. Gravel armoring usually occurs in areas ofa channel that naturally scour, and as such are not normally subject to maintenance dredging. Gravel armoring protects the river bed from erosion, stabilizes banks and bars, and prevents excessive sediment movement (Simons et al. 1982). Gravel dredging in such areas not only destroys bottom organisms and their habitats, but can also disrupt channel geomorphic stability causing channel bed and bank erosion (Lagasse et al. 1980, Kanehl and Lyons 1992). Currently, there are no active permitted instream gravel dredging operations in navigable waters ofthe Basin.

MINING for coal, sand, gravel, or gold is locally concentrated in areas within the Basin. Active and inactive coal mines are founa in the upland drainages ofthe Black Warrior River, and in portions ofthe Cahaba and Coosa river drainages. Runofffrom coal surface mining has resulted in acidification, mineralization, and sedimentation ofstreams and rivers, all ofwhich are detrimental to aquatic species (Mason 1991). Such impacts are more closely associated with past activities and abandoned mines, since presently operating mines are required to employ environmental safeguards established by the Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 and the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Instream sand and gravel mines can cause severe bank erosion, channel widening, destruction of riparian habitats, and other geomorphic changes including headcuts which can extend considerable distances upstream from the mines (Hartfield 1993). Poorly sited or inadequately designed mines in the flood plain can have similar effects. Concentrated sand and gravel mining activity in areas ofthe upper Tombigbee River and in the lower Tallapoosa River drainages have resulted in the decline or extirpation ofrare endemic mollusks (Jones 1991, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).

Gold mining historically occurred in the upper Coosa River drainage, and sediments in the headwaters ofthe Etowah River are contaminated by mercury from past mining actions (Leigh 1994). Small hydraulic dredge operations continue to impact streams in this area (The Atlanta Constitution 1982). The State ofAlabama has also investigated the potential ofmercury contamination ofstreams in eastern Alabama from past gold mining activities (ADEM in litt. 1994).

POLLUTION from inadequately treated effluent (waste discharge) ofindustrial plants and/or sewage treatment plants can eliminate, or reduce the density and diversity, of riverine species

12 (Hynes 1970). Effluents may be toxic to some species or may result in decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, increased acidity and conductivity, and other changes in water chemistry which may adversely affect aquatic species. Carpet mills and fabric dying mills are believed to have had a major impact on stream communities in Coosa River tributaries in Alabama and Georgia (Hurd 1974). Large industrial plants, such as paper mills and refineries, are generally located on largermain-stem rivers because oftheir greater assimilation capacity (the capacity of a body ofwater to assimilate pollutants without environmental harm). When that assimilation capacity is exceeded, large river biotic communities are adversely impacted. In the past two decades, effluents from such industries have had less impact on the aquatic ecosystem because of the implementation of pollution control standards established by State and Federal water quality laws. In some stream/river segments, however, such improvements may have been negated by increases in the number ofdischarges.

Although more closely regulated than ever, industrial and municipal discharges may continue to threaten several populations ofimperiled species in the Basin. Aquatic species vary in their sensitivities and reactions to effluent components. Stressors that have minimal effects on adults may prove limiting to reproduction, juveniles, and/or host fish. Current State and Federal water quality standards are assumed to be protective for all species. However, there is an almost total absence of toxicity data on listed and candidate species in the Basin. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to identify appropriate surrogates for imperiled aquatic species that can be used in toxicity studies to better define protective water quality standards and criteria.

Nonpoint source pollution originates from land surface activities such as construction, agriculture, silviculture, urbanization, etc., and can be carried downstream. Stormwater runoff may carry: sediments, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides from lawns, sod farms, golf courses, cultivated fields, pastures, managed forests, and construction sites; animal wastes from cattle feedlots, dairy farms, poultry houses, and catfish ponds; septic tank leakage and greywater discharge from rural, suburban, and urban residences; and oils and greases from parking lots, highways, and roads. Some forms ofnonpoint source runoff can be toxic to aquatic organisms at one or more oftheir life stages. Pollutants in stormwater runoff can also add to the effects ofpoint source discharges from municipalities and industries. For example, recent studies indicate that imperiled aquatic species in the Cahaba River continue to decline due to the cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff and waste water treatment plant discharges (Shepard et al. 1996).

The current status and condition of the Basin’s aquatic biota and habitats result from a historical progression of accumulating human use and impact to the ecosystem. Some impacts have been immediate and long lasting (e.g., physical habitat destruction). Others have changed over time with resource exploitation, regulation, or human population density.

13 Current and Future Threats to the Basin’s Imperiled Aquatic Species

“This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper”

- T.S. Eliot, 1925.

The Basin’s imperiled aquatic species currently survive in stream or river reaches (refugia) that are isolated from each other by impounded, dredged, polluted, or otherwise degraded channels. Impounding, channelizing, dredging, mining, or polluting river and stream refugia will result in, or contribute to, additional extinctions within the Basin. Several refugia are currently threatened. Tributaries that support a variety ofimperiled species in the Tombigbee (e.g., Buttahatchee, East Fork, Luxapalila) and Tallapoosa (e.g., Uphapee, Chewacla, Opintloco) River drainages are eroding due to headcuts initiated by either local mines or channelization projects, or a combination of such activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, Patrick and Dueitt 1996).

Refugia isolation also compounds the insidious (gradual, cumulative, harmful) effects of stormwater runoffon imperiled aquatic populations and communities. Isolated populations are more vulnerable to land surface runoffthat affects water quality or the suitability of aquatic habitats within a watershed. Blocked from avenues ofemigration (dispersal) to less affected watersheds, they gradually and quietly perish if changes in land use activities cause aquatic habitat conditions to deteriorate. Similarly, if positive land use changes improve previously degraded aquatic habitat conditions, barriers to immigration will, nevertheless, prevent natural recolonization.

While the detrimental effect of any one source or land use activity may be insignificant by itself, the combined effects of land use runoffwithin a watershed may result in gradual and cumulative adverse impacts to isolated populations and their habitats. For example, excessive sediments deposited on stream bottoms can smother and kill relatively immobile bottom-dwelling species, and can eliminate more mobile aquatic species by making their habitat unsuitable for feeding or reproduction (Brookes 1994, National Research Council 1992, Waters 1995, Hartfield and Hartfield 1996). Suspended sediments can interfere with feeding or affect behavior and reproduction (Waters 1995, Haag et al. 1995). Sediment is the most abundant pollutant in the Basin in terms ofquantity produced (ADEM 1989). Potential sediment sources within a particular watershed include virtually all activities that disturb the land surface. Severe sedimentation problems are currently evident throughout most ofthe Basin. from headwater mountain streams to large coastal plain rivers.

Excessive nutrient input from multiple sources (e.g, nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer, sewage waste, animal manure, etc.) into an aquatic system can also have cumulative effects. In fact, land surface runoffcontributes the majority ofhuman-induced nutrients to water bodies throughout the country (Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality 1995). Large amounts of nutrients in surface runoffcan result in periodic low dissolved oxygen levels that are detrimental to aquatic species (eutrophication) (Hynes 1970). They also promote excessive algal

14 growth that can eliminate habitat for aquatic species requiring clean rock or gravel substrate during one or more of their life stages (e.g., Hartfield and Hartfield 1996). Excessive nutrients within a stream or river can also indicate the potential presence ofpathogenic microorganisms.

Although reservoirs do not provide habitat for the riverine species covered by this Plan, more than halfof the large reservoirs in the Basin have excess nutrient levels (as measured by their Trophic Index) (ADEM 1994, Alabama Fisheries Association 1996). Some have nutrient levels that could endanger aquatic life and/or significantly diminish the reservoirs value for other uses.

Stream and river reaches that support the Basin’s imperiled species remain vulnerable to progressive degradation from land surface runoff. In many cases, it is small, everyday, non- regulated activities considered “insignificant” by most of us that will ultimately cause continued decline and extinction ofthe Basin’s aquatic species. Stream and river refugia can only be maintained by appropriate land and water stewardship within their respective watersheds.

Conservation Measures

Although the effects of modem human activities on the aquatic ecosystem may appear overwhelming, their potential impacts have been reduced by numerous mandated and voluntary conservation measures. Industrial and municipal compliance with State and Federal water quality regulations has substantially improved the quality ofmany receiving waters. Regulatory compliance by the surface mining industry has reduced detrimental mine drainage. Farms and ranches have applied new knowledge and improved technology to reduce agricultural erosion, protect wetlands, and refine fertilizer and herbicide applications. Voluntary forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been developed in all four states drained by the Basin and are being implemented by many commercial and private interests. Programs and manuals are continuously being developed or refined by State and private interests to improve and to encourage the application ofBMPs for construction, forestry, agriculture, and animal waste disposal that are more protective ofwater quality.

The Basin’s citizens are also seeking to protect watershed quality and values by forming grass roots organizations. Community action groups such as the Cahaba River Society, Conasauga River Alliance, Friends ofthe Locust Fork River, Five Mile Creek Action Committee, Friends of Buck Creek, Friends of Little River, Coalition for the Preservation ofHatchet Creek, Alabama Rivers Alliance, and others advocate proper stewardship of the Basin’s aquatic resources. The Mobile River Basin Coalition, a group of concerned business, environmental, and government representatives, has organized to promote effective stewardship of the ecosystem’s natural resources through education, dialogue, and voluntary individual and community actions.

State and other Federal agencies are working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor and protect listed species in the Basin, conduct research, and minimize conflicts. Various programs of State conservation agencies conduct inventories and surveys, distribute information, and regulate actions that could adversely impact water quality and quantity. In addition to such

15 contributions, the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Office of Water Resources hosts and provides office support for the Mobile River Basin Coalition. The U.S. Forest Service has revised and strengthened stream management zone guidelines on National Forests in Alabama.

The EPA is reviewing the need for using additional surrogate species to test for impacts of pollution on listed aquatic species in recognition of the greater sensitivity of listed species to common pollutants. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and other agencieshave reviewed and revised programs, projects, and permits to protect listed species in the Basin. Surveys of historic habitat, status assessments of imperiled species, and water quality investigations are underway in portions of the Basin (see Appendices A and B for additional species specific conservation measures, and Appendix F for ongoing environmental and conservation programs in the Basin).

Human Demographic Trends and Implications for Imperiled Aquatic Species

The decline ofthe Basin’s aquatic ecosystem and imperiled species are the result of increasing lv’man populations, past modifications to meet their needs, and impacts of current land use ities. Demographic trends indicate that the human population and associated needs for housing, recreation, water, electricity, forest and agricultural products, waste disposal, sand and gravel, etc., will continue to increase within the Basin (Figure 2).

Although considerable State, Federal, and private efforts are currently underway to reduce pollution, protect habitat, and minimize conflicts, increasing and changing demands for the Basin’s resources will continue to locally impact imperiled species populations and their habitats. Listed and other isolated imperiled species populations will remain vulnerable to random accidents, such as toxic spills, and to natural catastrophic events, such as droughts and floods, even if land uses and human populations were to remain constant within isolated watersheds. The implications are that it is highly unlikely that recovery can be achieved, or the status quo of the Basin’s imperiled aquatic species can be maintained, without some degree of habitat management and aquatic species population manipulation.

Recovery Strategy

“Troubled by what we have wrought, we turn in our rolefrom local conqueror to steward”

- E.O. Wilson, Harvard University entomologist and author.

The major problems affecting the Basin’s aquatic ecosystem are large in scale, interrelated, and highly complex. In addition to imperiled species, these problems result in direct social costs -- for water treatment and waste disposal, decreased recreational and commercial fisheries, and, in some locations, property losses and devaluation. Problems associated with complex

16 FIGURE 2:

MOBILE BASIN POPULATION GROWTH 1980-2050 10,000 124 BASED ON 8.72% GROWTH PER DECADE 8.393 8,000 7.719 7,100 6,531 6,007 C,) 6,000 - 5,525 0 z 5.082 C,, 0 4,000 I I— 2,000

0 1980 1990 2UUU 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 YEAR

Prepared by Dr. George Folkerts, Auburn University, Alabama. Source: 1990 Census. 17 issues such as urban and industrial waste management and water quality standards require considerable time and effort to resolve. Such problems also affect human health and quality of life and must be addressed regardless oftheir impacts upon other forms oflife.

Current laws and regulations require that future projects that may cause impacts to aquatic species and their habitats (e.g., impoundments, channelization, etc.) are assessed in regard to need, environmental impact, possible alternatives, and costs. Laws and regulations, however, cannot guarantee that the most cost effective or least damaging alternative will be selected in every case. The best guarantee that such selections will be made is recognition of environmental functions and values, and an awareness ofindividual and societal stewardship responsibilities.

Therefore, the primary strategy of this Plan is to emphasize stewardship responsibilities shared by all inhabitants ofthe Basin in maintaining the aquatic ecosystem. All citizens, whether urban or rural, share the benefits ofresource use and exploitation, and also benefit from maintaining environmental quality and biodiversity.

The Plan promotes three basic tenets:

1. Use to the fullest practical extent existing laws, regulations and policies to protect listed populations and their habitats, and to develop and encourage a stream management strategy that places high priority on conservation and restoration. Currently, over 75% of all U.S. faunal extinctions, and almost 50% ofall listed species are from free-flowing river and stream habitats. As exceptional loci (places) ofextinction and imperilment, the Basin’s free-flowing riverine habitats require conservation priority. Management ofimperiled aquatic species and their habitats must incorporate protection, restoration, and manipulation.

2. Encourage voluntary stewardship through joint initiatives and individual actions as the only practical and economical means of minimizing adverse effects of private land use and activities within watersheds. The watershed is the basic restoration unit ofthe Basin. Hundreds ofstream watersheds converge to form river drainages, which coalesce to form the Basin. Land use practices within a watershed are intimately tied to the condition ofthe stream or river that drains it. Voluntary soil and water stewardship practices implemented by individual landowners and communities can result in significant contributions to watershed quality and imperiled species status. In general, landowners may feel threatened by the presence oflisted species on or near their properties. They may be reluctant to participate in watershed stewardship practices oriented toward protecting, enhancing or restoring endangered and threatened species habitat. Giving landowners and communities primary stewardship responsibilities for the watersheds they inhabit, and providing mechanisms for them to play major

18 decision-making roles in watershed management may reduce fear of property and economic impacts.

3. Continue to promote research efforts on life histories, sensitivities, and requirements of imperiled aquatic species, and develop technological capabilities to maintain and propagate them. Such information derived from research will result in increased management flexibility.

It is known that human use, population numbers, and associated impacts will change within watersheds. Therefore, the ability to manipulate imperiled populations and their habitats will improve their chances of survival and greatly increase future management options. Current obstacles to management include: public perceptions that the presence oflisted species within a watershed diminishes private property uses and values; a lack ofconsensus for a stream management strategy within the Basin; depressed population numbers of imperiled species, making relocations risky and augmentation impossible; and technological barriers to artificial propagation and population augmentation. This plan promotes education, communication, and partnerships as methods to minimize or eliminate current obstacles to management options.

The Mobile River Basin aquatic ecosystem has been converted by modern human activities from a free flowing water continuum to a scattered collection ofisolated segments ofrivers and streams that function as refugia ofbiodiversity. Maintaining the remnants ofthis unique legacy will require human intervention for decades to come. The primary responsibility for aquatic ecosystem management is, and should be, firmly in the hands of all ofthe Basin’s inhabitants. We must work together to understand, promote, and achieve the proper balance ofland and water use and stewardship. This is the only practical way to maintain the ecosystem’s quality for both humanity and the Basin’s unique aquatic communities.

19 PART II

RECOVERY

A. Ecosystem Management Objective

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s goal in developing and implementing recovery plans is to improve the status oflisted species to the point that protection under the Endangered Species Act is no longer required. Imperilment and extinction are Basin-wide aquatic ecosystem phenomena. Therefore, a primary objective ofthis Ecosystem Plan is to achieve increased management flexibility and options by promoting higher levels of innovative land and water stewardship. This objective can be accomplished by fully using existing State and Federal legislation and regulations to protect, enhance, and manage aquatic habitats throughout the Basin, and by encouraging and assisting private landowners and economic interests toward these goals. Aquatic ecosystem management is a permanent commitment if we are to minimize future listings and extinctions and maintain human options and quality oflife in the Basin.

B. Listed Species Recovery Objectives and Criteria (see Appendices A & B for species specific information)

Tulotoma snail (Endangered) The immediate recovery objective for the tulotoma snail is to reclassify the species from endangered to threatened status. Recent studies indicate that reclassification may currently be warranted. Since listing, two additional small Coosa Rivertributary tulotoma snail populations have been discovered, making a total ofseven known populations within the drainage. The largest ofthese is found in the Coosa River, below Jordan Dam, Elmore County, Alabama. Since the tulotoma snail was listed, the Alabama Power Company (APC) has significantly increased minimum flows below Jordan Dam (FERC 1990). Results ofa 3 year study by the APC indicate that this population is stable, reproducing, contains high numbers ofindividuals, and has the capacity to move into habitat made available by the increase in the minimum flowregime (Christman et al. 1995). Additionally, this study has provided valuable information regarding reproduction, fecundity, population demographics, and other important aspects oflife history. Other studies funded by the State of Alabama have provided habitat information for several tributary populations (Devries 1994). The tulotoma snail will be considered for reclassification from endangered to threatened status when a status review ofthese studies is completed and confirmation is obtained that a stable or increasing population occurs in the Coosa River, below Jordan Dam. The estimated date forreclassification is 2002.

21 Delisting ofthe tulotoma snail will be considered when (1) a formal agreement has been developed with Alabama Power Company to maintain base flows below Jordan Dam that are protective for tulotoma, (2) four ofthe six known tributary snail populations (Choccolocco, Hatchet, Kelly, and Weogufka Creeks) are shown to be stable or increasing for at least five years, and (3) community developed watershed plans are implemented to protect and monitor water and habitat quality in the four targeted watersheds. The estimated date for delisting is 2010, if recovery criteria are met.

Goldline darter (Threatened) The recovery objective for the goldline darter is to delist the species. Delisting will be considered when (1) the known populations ofthe goldline darter are shown to be stable or increasing for a period ofat least 5 years; (2) there has been a demonstrated trend in water quality improvement in the reach of the Cahaba River occupied by this fish; and (3) community developed watershed plans are implemented to protect and monitor water and habitat quality in all occupied watersheds. The estimated date for delisting is 2010, if recovery criteria are met.

Cherokee (Threatened) and Etowah (Endangered) darters The recovery objective is to delist the Cherokee and Etowah darters. Delisting these species will be considered when (1) their known populations are shown to be stable or increasing for a period ofat least five years, and (2) community developed watershed plans are imPlemented to protect and monitor water and habitat quality in all occupied watersheds. The estimated date for delisting is 2010, if recovery criteria are met.

11 mussel species (3 Threatened, 8 Endangered) Recovery ofthe 11 mussel species specifically covered by this plan to the point of downlisting or delisting is unlikely in the near future because of the extent oftheir decline, population isolation, theirapparent sensitivity to common pollutants, and continued impacts upon their habitats (see Appendix A). Protecting surviving populations ofthreatened and endangered mussels and their stream and river habitats is the immediate recovery objective. For most ofthese populations, protection can best be achieved at watershed levels by voluntary community stewardship awareness, action, and planning.

A synopsis ofrecovery objectives for other listed species in the Basin with previous recovery plans is found in Appendix B. Recovery criteria for any ofthe Basin’s 39 listed aquatic species may be revised on the basis ofnew information generated from the completion ofrecovery tasks.

22 C. Narrative Outline

1.Protect habitat integrity and quality of river and stream segments that currently support or could support imperiled aquatic species. Stemming the decline and loss of instream aquatic habitats throughoutthe Basin is essential for maintenance and management of the species and communities these habitats support. River and stream reaches known to be occupied by endangered or threatened aquatic species are generally protected by provisions ofthe Endangered Species Act from projects and actions that would adversely affect instream habitats. However, many high quality stream and river reaches currently without known listed populations may contain other unlisted imperiled species, or may be suitable for eventual restocking with listed aquatic species. Providing a higher degree ofconsideration for such areas will maintain options essential for the successful management of isolated populations within a fragmented ecosystem. Regulatory agencies, municipalities, businesses and industries, and private land owners should thoroughly consider and apply creative alternatives to habitat modification, waste disposal, and other impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. The key to successful recovery planning that minimizes impacts to both listed species and stakeholders is vigilant monitoring and management ofremaining instream habitats through informed participation by all stakeholders.

1.1 Identify for protection free flowing stream and river reaches that support high native aquatic biodiversity. Identification brings recognition of special protection needs. Basin river and stream reaches that support historically occurring, reproducing endemic species and communities are valuable but diminishing resources. These reaches should be recognized by regulatory agencies and given appropriate consideration to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, or compensate for) adverse impacts.

1.2 Minimize aquatic habitat impacts resulting from activities or permits conducted or issued by regulatory authorities. Major habitat modifications that have had the most serious impacts on the aquatic biota ofthe Basin have been either constructed or authorized by Federal and/or State regulatory agencies. Such modifications in the future for flood control, navigation, water supply, mining, etc., must be fully considered for need and alternatives. Practical alternatives such as floodplain easement purchases, relocation of floodplain structures or activities, protection ofheadwater wetlands, etc., should be used where and when appropriate. All construction activities permitted or conducted by Federal, State, County, or other local regulatory authority should effectively

23 implement Best Management Practices for stormwater runoffand ~dimentcontrol.

1.3 ncourage development and implementation ofappropriate guidelines for mining sand and gravel from alluvial channels and floodplains. Mining for sand and gravel within river and stream channels should be tightly regulated. Such activities, including the mining ofpoint bars can change the geometry ofthe channel and result in channel adjustment, upstream channel degradation and bank erosion, and downstream sediment deposition and turbidity. In a study conducted for the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Mobile District, Simons et al. (1982) made recommendations to avoid channel degradation from gravel dredging operations within the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. These included developing quantitative safe yield analyses prior to mining, before and after extraction hydrographic surveys ofthe channel, and maintenance of extraction amount records. Floodplain sand and gravel mines can be environmentally sound and economical sources of aggregates; however, improperly designed or sited mines can also initiate channel adjustment problems. Appropriate State agencies in the Basin should develop and implement guidelines to ensure that floodplain mines are properly designed and located, adequate buffer strips between mines and stream channels are maintained, waste treatment and discharges are monitored, and mine sites are rehabilitated upon closure. Geomorphic studies should be conducted on free flowing streams with current or past sand and gravel mining operations. Appropriate actions should be taken to protect stream channel integrity where geomorphic problems are identified.

1.4 Work with States under the Triennial Review Process to ensure water quality standards and classifications that provide for ecosystem stabilization. In many streams and rivers, even where instream physical habitats remain adequate, water quality degradation has caused the extirpation ofentire faunal assemblages (e.g., pleurocerid snails and freshwatermussels in the Mulberry Fork, Black Warrior River drainage), or significantly reduced species diversity (e.g., mussels in the Cahaba and Coosa River drainages). Although measures taken to improve water quality over the past two decades have generally been effective, in some stream segments they have been overwhelmed by local increases in urban and agricultural runoff, and/or industrial and municipal discharges. Protection ofwater quality into the next century will require strict adherence to current standards and regulations. In some cases, changes of the standards and criteriamay be necessary. Water quality standards and classifications ofeach State in the Basin are reviewed and revised at 3-

24 year intervals. State water quality classifications, waste load allocation models, permit review processes, and other important water quality actions should be revised where appropriate studies have identified and quantified inadequacies.

1.5 Promote and support a watershed management approach to water quality. A watershed management approach synchronizes water quality monitoring, inspections, and permitting within a defined watershed (see Appendix F (2)). It has the potential ofintegrating imperiled species habitatconcerns with all other water quality issues, including economic and human health, within the defined watershed. Such an approach allows a greater degree ofpublic education about, and involvement with, local water quality issues and decisions. It may prove useful in providing community incentive to reduce nonpoint source impacts to water quality.

1.51 Develop coordinated plans to address sanitary wastewater treatment plant effluents within severely impacted watersheds. Sanitary wastewater treatment plant effluents are a major contributor to stream eutrophication, particularly in urban areas. Many wastewater treatment plants need to be upgraded as necessary to protect aquatic resources. Alternative methods of handling urban and suburban wastes, such as constructed wetlands or land application (see EPA 1987), need to be investigated and adopted where possible.

1.52 Encourage alternative disinfection measures for the treatment of sewage wastes in sensitive watersheds. Residual chlorine and certain other wastewater components resulting from disinfectant procedures are toxic to aquatic organisms. There may be adverse long-term impacts from these diluted discharges on the survival and reproduction ofthe Basin’s endemic aquatic fauna. The nature and extent of such impacts are currently unknown. However, many listed and imperiled aquatic species have disappeared from receiving stream reaches. Alternative disinfectant techniques, such as treatment with ultraviolet radiation, ozone. etc., are available and should be considered for use in sensitive watersheds (i.e., those with listed species and/or endemic communities).

1.53 Encourage compliance with current water quality discharge limitations and regulations. Current State and Federal enforcement programs should ensure consistent compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions and discharge limitations. Regulated industrial, sewage

25 treatment plant, surface mine permitted discharges, and stormwater runoff should be monitored with sufficient frequency to encourage compliance with water quality standards. Unpermitted discharges should be identified and brought into compliance. Increased public involvement and attention to watershed conditions may provide opportunities for community based monitoring.

1.54 Encourage effective silt and sediment runoff control from all construction activities. Uncontrolled sediments from temporary construction activities contribute to river and stream degradation. Excess sediments may smother stream bottom habitats and/or result in erosion and other channel changes. Construction contractors should be encouraged to use and maintain effective sediment control techniques and dispose ofexcess sediments such that these materials will not eventually reach surface waters.

1.55 Encourage consideration of standards for water withdrawal from tributary streams in States drained by the Basin. Water withdrawal from streams for irrigation and other uses severely affects some streams in the Basin during low flow periods. Surface water demands for domestic, industrial, and irrigation purposes will likely continue to increase. Identifying and adopting sustainable minimum flow standards applicable to water withdrawals will protect aquatic resources and communities, encourage consideration ofalternative technology, and reduce future conflicts.

2. Consider options for free-flowing river and stream mitigation strategies that give high priority to avoidance and restoration. As noted above, avoidance of impact is the most important and immediate management need for maintaining existing imperiled populations and their habitats. However, long-term management requires the ability to accommodate changes in human use ofthe Basin’s resources. Restoration of stream and river reaches, and rehabilitation of their aquatic communities will increase management options to accommodate future changes within the Basin. Compensating for aquatic habitat impacts can be an important component of aquatic habitat management.

2.1 Identify appropriate mitigation measures for free flowing streams and rivers. When destruction or alteration of stream or river habitat is unavoidable, there should be an effort to restore or rehabilitate a comparable amount ofinstream aquatic habitat elsewhere in the Basin. Unfortunately, there is little guidance or consensus for the amount and degree of measures that could satisfy mitigation goals for free flowing riverine habitat. Federal, State, and local environmental and regulatory

26 agencies and nongovernmental interests must work toward consensus on this problem, considering issues such as amount, quality, and location of river or stream segments under consideration for mitigation measures, and other alternatives, such as the need and possibility ofestablishing mitigation banks for permit applicants.

2.11 Investigate the potential ofpartnerships and assistance to relieve land use problems within watersheds as a form of mitigation. Concentrated land uses within watersheds can overwhelm the benefits ofindividual landowner Best Management Practices (BMPs). Animal wastes from concentrated husbandry of poultry, fish, and livestock is a major determinant of water quality in some watersheds. Urbanization ofwatersheds also causes complex runoff/water quality problems. Such problem areas may offer creative mitigation opportunities. Examples include developing equipment, facilities, or other components to establish centralized waste treatment for areas ofhigh concentration of poultry farms and other animal feedlots; and providing assistance to communities for stormwater catchment and treatment.

3. Promote voluntary stewardship as a practical and economical means of reducing nonpoint pollution from private land use. BMPs can be effective and practical actions identified to prevent or reduce nonpoint pollution from specific land use activities (ADEM 1989, MSDEQ 1994). For example, agricultural BMPs are designed to reduce sediments, animal wastes, fertilizers, and pesticides in stormwater runoff (e.g., ASWCC 1995). Mining BMPs address sediments and water quality parameters such as acidity and metal concentrations (e.g., ADEM 1989). Silviculture BMPs include actions to minimize sediments, nutrients, organics, chemicals, and stream canopy removal (e.g., MFA 1989, AFC 1993). BMPs are also available for urban, construction, and homeowner activities that address stormwater runoffquality and quantity (ASWCC 1992, MSDEQ 1994). BMPs are developed by State and industry planning partnerships with public participation, and can be effective when they are properly implemented and adequately maintained. BMPs, however, are not always fully implemented or maintained. Industry groups and organizations, and State resource agencies should continue to promote and improve BMPs when necessary as a nonregulatory approach to aquatic ecosystem management.

3.1 Work with State and private partners to promote land and water stewardship awareness. Local offices of State and Federal agencies and private organizations can become a primary source ofencouragement and information for imperiled species and aquatic ecosystem management. For example, local offices (e.g, Soil and Water Conservation Districts,

27 Natural Resources Conservation Service, State Forestry Commissions, private industry groups, environmental groups, etc.) can identify watersheds with listed species within their areas; inform local landowners oflisted species presence, needs, and special management concerns; recommend appropriate BMPs; and mediate landowner concerns or conflicts with appropriate State and/or Federal agencies. In some watersheds, standard BMPs may need to be adjusted according to stream size, soil conditions, and land use intensity. Private industry groups can work with local landowners to customize BMPs where needed to address watershed problems and practices.

3.2 Encourage the development and implementation ofadequate Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) along all streams and rivers in the Basin. Properly designed SMZs, acting as filter strips, can buffer the impacts ofland use activities on water and stream bottom habitat quality. SMZs protect public and private property from erosion, reduce downstream sedimentation, and enhance fish and wildlife values for both game and nongame species. SMZs can also reduce nutrient levels in tributary streams in the Basin, which will help control eutrophication in Basin reservoirs (see Part I, Section C. Current and Future Threats to the Basin’s Imperiled Aquatic Species). Some farmlands adjacent to streams and rivers may-qualify for SMZ set aside under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program and other initiatives. SMZs are widely recognized as cost effective habitat management practices. For example, the American Forest and Paper Association’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative requires its members to meet or exceed existing SMZ state standards. SMZs may be custom designed to protect stream habitat while achieving individual landowners management objectives. For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service recommends SMZs from 22-91 meters (75-300 feet), with varying restrictions, depending on soil, slope, topography, and land use. Other government agencies and private groups make similar recommendations. SMZs are also effective in controlling urban and suburban stormwaterrunoff.

4. Encourage and support community based watershed stewardship planning and action. Protection, restoration, and management planning for imperiled aquatic habitats is best accomplished by partners and stakeholders within a watershed. Such grassroots community planning educates participants about aquatic species, their habitat needs, and sensitivities; acknowledges local activities, problems and their effects on water; and leads to buy-in to local solutions. Stewardship partnerships are essential in watersheds supporting listed or other imperiled aquatic species, and should be encouraged within any ofthe

28 Basin’s watersheds. Resource and regulatory agencies should offer support, materials, and technical and facilitation assistance when requested.

4.1 Reduce private land use/endangered species conflicts. Landowners and other watershed inhabitants may feel threatened by the presence oflisted aquatic species, and be reluctant to participate in watershed stewardship planning or action. In such cases, Watershed Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements, or other innovative avenues to assure and guarantee private landuses within watersheds should be developed.

5. Develop and implement programs and materials to educate the public on the need and benefits ofecosystem management, and to involve them in watershed stewardship. Only an informed and proactive public can bring about ecosystem stabilizationand rehabilitation. Successful ecosystem management will require public involvement, monitoring, and commitment of resources. Educational materials and programs should describe the concept and need for ecosystem management, its long-term economic and environmental advantages, and public and individual stewardship responsibilities.

6. Conduct basic research on endemic aquatic species and apply the results toward management and protection ofaquatic communities. The biology and ecology ofendemic aquatic species in the Basin are poorly known. Information on distribution, habitat requirements, life stage sensitivity to contaminants, and the identification of mussel host fish is essential to the recovery ofendemic species and management and protection of their communities and habitats. All partners should be aware ofresearch efforts and results, so that information can be immediately applied.

6.1 Survey and monitor the status oflisted and other endemic aquatic species. Extant populations oflisted and other endemic species should be located and their status monitored.

6.2 Conduct detailed physical and molecular genetic analyses of endemic species. Most ofthe basin’s endemic aquatic species have not been fully described anatomically. This information, in conjunction with genetic biochemical comparisons ofpopulations and related species, may provide information important to population management and recovery.

6.3 Determine contaminant sensitivity for each life stage. It is known that juvenile and adult life stages of aquatic fauna may differ in sensitivity to contaminants. The technology and methodology should be developed to determine sub-lethal and lethal levels of pesticides, herbicides, and

29 common contaminants and discharges to listed species and other endemic organisms in the Basin.

6.4 Conduct life history research on endemic species to include reproduction, food habits, age and growth, mortality factors, etc. Life history information may provide insight into past declines, current status of endemic species, weak links in the life cycle, and management guidance for their recovery.

6.41 Identify breeding periods of endemic species, mussel reproduction strategies, and host fish of endemic mussels. Most mussels are dependent upon a host fish for completion oftheir life cycle. Hosts for many endemic mussel species in the basin are currently unknown. Identification and protection of host fish is critical to the continued survival ofmussel species.

6.42 Determine nutritional requirements ofendemic species life stages. It is possible that juvenile forms ofmany taxa feed on different items than adults. Such requirements may be limiting factors in the survival of these species. Nutritional requirements must be known for successful captive propagation of endemic species (see Task 7).

7. Develop and implement technology for maintaining and propagating endemic species in captivity. Populations ofendemic species in the Basin are isolated by large expanses ofimpounded, or otherwise severely altered, habitat. Maintenance ofgenetic flow between extant populations, and reintroduction of species to restored habitats, will require human intervention. Populations ofmany species are currently too low to justify translocation of wild stock between drainages. Captive propagation will be required to produce reintroduction stock if ecosystem restoration is eventually successful (see Task 8). Large numbers of juveniles and adults will also be needed for research to determine sensitivity of species to common contaminants (Task 6.3).

8. Reintroduce aquatic species into restored habitats, as appropriate. For many listed species, this step will be possible only when, and if, successful captive propagation technology is developed. Reintroduction will be closely coordinated with appropriate State agencies and affected private landowners. No reintroduction or translocation of species should be made without the concurrence of the appropriate State wildlife resource agencies and the knowledge and consensus of local watershed inhabitants.

30 8.1 Identify sites for translocation/reintroduction. Potential sites for reintroduction consist ofstreams within the historic range ofendemic species that meet the substrate, flow, water quality, and other environmental requirements of the species. Such sites need to be identified and monitored.

8.11 Survey and prioritize potential sites. Water quality, substrate composition, aquatic community composition, and watershed land uses should be characterized. Priority should be given to watersheds with appropriate habitat, diverse faunal assemblages, minimal land use impacts, and active management programs.

8.2 Translocate target endemic species to priority sites. Translocations should be conducted in a rigorous, scientific manner, and should be well- documented.

8.3 Monitor translocated populations. Stream and river reaches with translocated populations should be monitored and surveyed annually for a minimum of5 years following translocation.

9. Monitor listed species population levels and distribution and periodically review ecosystem management strategy. Listed species will be monitored by Tasks 6.1 and 8.3. Changes in distribution (losses and gains) should be used to focus recovery efforts and priorities. Ecosystem management strategy should be periodically reviewed and revised, if appropriate, based on this information.

10. Coordinate ecosystem management actions. The above recovery tasks approach ecosystem stabilization and management on three tiers: Federal and State regulatory authority and responsibility; private activities, public education and involvement; and research. Implementation of these tasks will involve multiple partners including State and Federal agencies, municipal and county governments, environmental and recreational organizations, civic groups, educational and research institutions, business and industry groups, landowners, and interested individuals. Successful implementation requires development of partnerships, coordination ofon-going activities, determination and prioritization ofneeded actions, and monitoring recovery progress within each ofthe Basin’s major drainages.

10.1 Support the Mobile River Basin Coalition (Coalition) in its efforts to define and coordinate aquatic ecosystem management. Recovery tasks and subtasks outlined above are broad in scope, and will require broad participation and planning to be successfully implemented. The Coalition has the private/government representation needed to define, plan,

31 prioritize, and implement recovery tasks at the Basin, drainage, and watershed levels. Coalitionpartners can provide institutional, technical, and fiscal support as appropriate to accomplish ecosystem management objectives.

32 D. Literature Cited

ADEM. 1989. Alabama nonpoint source management program. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, Alabama. 135 pp.

ADEM. 1994. Water quality report to Congress. Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, Alabama. 111 pp.

AFC. 1993. Alabama’s best management practices (BMPs) for forestry. Alabama Forestry Commission, Montgomery, Alabama.

Alabama Fisheries Association. 1996. Position paper: Eutrophication of Alabama lakes. Eutrophication Committee of the Alabama Fisheries Association. 17 pp.

ASWCC. 1992. Alabama handbook for erosion control, sediment control, and stormwater management on construction sites and urban areas. Draft. Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee, Montgomery, Alabama.

ASWCC. 1995. Protecting water quality on Alabama’s farms. Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee, Montgomery, Alabama. 124 pp.

Biggins, R. 1994. Federal activities that may affect the Alabama sturgeon and anticipated section 7 consultations on these activities. White Paper jointly prepared by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina.

Bogan, A.E., J.M. Pierson, and P. Hartfield. 1995. Decline in the freshwater gastropod fauna in the Mobile Bay Basin. Pp. 249-252. In: E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Fans, C.E. Puckert, P.D. Doran, M.J. Mac (eds.). Our Living Resources, a report to the Nation on the distribution, abundance and health of U.S. plants, animals and ecosystems. U.S. Department of • Interior, National Biological Survey, Washington, DC.

Boschung, H.T. 1992. Catalog of freshwater and marine fishes ofAlabama. Bulletin ofthe Alabama Museum ofNatural History 14. 266 pp.

Brookes, A. 1994. River channel change. Pp. 55-75. In: P. Calow and G.E. Peffs (eds.). The Rivers Handbook, Hydrological and Ecological Principals. Vol. 2. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, Massachusetts.

Burch, J.B. 1989. North American freshwater snails. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 365 pp.

33 Butler, R.S. 1989. Distributional records for freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Florida and South Alabama, with zoogeographic and taxonomic notes. Walkerana 3:239- 261.

Christman, S.P., F.G. Thompson, and E.L. Raiser. 1995. Tulotoma magn~fica (Conrad)(Gastropoda: Viviparidae) status and biology in the Coosa River below Jordan Dam, Alabama. Final Project Report. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 63 pp.

Devries, D.R. 1994. The ecology and current status ofthe endangered tulotoma snail. Final Report to Alabama Department of Conservationand Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 46 pp.

EPA. 1987. It’s your choice: a guidebook for local officials on small community wastewater management options. EPA 430/9-87-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 73 pp.

FERC. 1990. Order on appeal and on requests for rehearing ofdenial ofstay and for declaratory order. Project Nos. 6 18-008 and -016. U.S. Federal Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC.

Gore, J.A. 1994. Hydrologic change. Pp. 33-54 In: P. Calow and G.E. Petts (eds.). The Rivers Handbook, Hydrological and Ecological Principals. Vol. 2. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Boston, Massachusetts.

Haag, W.R., R.S. Butler, and P.D. Hartfield. 1995. An extraordinary reproductive strategy in freshwater bivalves: prey mimicry to facilitate larval dispersal. Freshwater Biology 34:471-476.

Harris, S.C. 1990. Preliminary considerations on rare and endangered invertebrates in Alabama. Joumal of the Alabama Academy of Science 61:64-92.

Hartfield, P. 1988. Status survey for the Alabama heelsplitter mussel, Potamilus inflatus (Lea 1831). Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 27 pp.

Hartfield, P. 1993. Headcuts and their effect on freshwatermussels. Pp. 131-141. In: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.). Proceedings ofa UMRCC symposium. Conservation and Management ofFreshwater Mussels.

Hartfield P. and E. Hartfield. 1996. Observations on the conglutinates ofPi’ychobranchus greeni (Conrad, 1834) (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoidea). American Midland Naturalist 135:370- 375.

34 Hubbard, W.D., D.C. Jackson, and D.J. Ebert. 1994. Impact: channelization. Pp. 135-155. In: F. Bryan (ed.). Stream impact evaluation guidelines. Warmwater Stream Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society.

Hurd, J.C. 1974. Systematics and zoogeography ofthe unionacean mollusks ofthe Coosa River drainage ofAlabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 240 pp.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology ofrunning waters. University ofToronto Press, Toronto.

Jones, R. 1991. Population status ofendangered mussels in the Buttahatchee River, Mississippi and Alabama, Segment 2. Mississippi Department ofWildlife, Fisheries and Parks. Museum Technical Report No. 14. 36 pp.

Kanelhl, P. and J. Lyons. 1992. Impacts ofin-stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources Research Report No. 155. 32 pp.

Lagasse, P.F., B.R. Winkley, and D.B. Simons. 1980. Impact of gravel mining on river system stability. Journal ofthe Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Division. pp. 389-404.

Leigh, D.S. 1994. Mercury storage and mobility in floodplains ofthe Dalonega gold belt. Technical Completion Report Project 14-08-0001-G2013-(04), U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department ofInterior.

Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality. 1995. The LMRCC Newsletter 2:11.

Lydeard, C. and R.L. Mayden. 1995. A diverse and endangered aquatic ecosystem of the southeast United States. Conservation Biology 9:800-805.

Mason, C.F. 1991. Biology of freshwater pollution. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. 351 pp.

Mettee, M.F., P.E. O’Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes ofAlabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama. 820 pp.

MFA. 1989. Mississippi’s best management practices handbook. Mississippi Forestry Association, Jackson, Mississippi. 33 pp.

MSDEQ. 1994. Planning & design manual for the control oferosion, sediment and storinwater. Mississippi Department ofEnvironmental Quality, Jackson, Mississippi.

35 National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 552 pp.

Patrick, D.M. and S.E. Dueitt. 1996. Geomorphology of erosion and channel instability, upper Tombigbee drainage basin, northeast Mississippi. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 77 pp.

Shepard, T.E., P.E. O’Neil, S.W. McGregor, and M.F. Mettee. 1996. Water quality and biomonitoring studies in the upper Cahaba River drainage ofAlabama, 1989-1994. Geological Survey ofAlabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Simons, D.B. R. Li, P.F. Lagasse, and J.D. Schall. 1982. Study ofchannel response to gravel dredgiriz along the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Mobile. Alabama. Contract No. DACWD l-81-C-0140.

Stein, C. B. 1976. Gastropods. Pp. 21-41. In: H. Boschung (ed.). Endangered and threatened plants and animals ofAlabama. Bulletin Alabama Museum of Natural History No. 2.

Swift, C.C., C.R. Gilbert, S.A. Bortone, G.H. Burgess, and R.W. Yerger. 1986. Zoogeography ofthe freshwater fishes ofthe southeastern United States: Savannah River to Lake Pontchartrain. Pp. 213-255. In: C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley (eds.). The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.

The Atlanta Constitution. 1982. Lowgrade gold ore, a high grade future. The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Interim Report: Tombigbee River Basin joint study, Alabama and Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama. pp. 158, 160-162.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status for eight freshwatermussels and threatened status for three freshwater mussels in the Mobile River drainage. Federal Register 58:14330-14340.

U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service. 1994. Status review ofselect mussel species in the Mobile River Basin. Status Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 3 pp. van der Schalie, H. 1981. Mollusks in the Alabama Riverdrainage, past and present. Sterkiana 71:24-40.

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. 251 pp.

36 PART III

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

Recovery plans are intended to assist the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and potential Federal, State, and private partners in planning and implementing actions to recover andlor protect endangered and threatened species. The following Implementation Schedule outlines recovery actions and their estimated costs for the first 3 years ofthis recovery program. It is a guide for planning and meeting the objectives discussed in Part II ofthis plan. The Schedule indicates task priorities, task numbers, task descriptions, duration oftasks, potential partners and responsible agencies, and lastly, estimated costs.

Recovery tasks are assigned numerical priorities to highlight the relative contribution they may make to species recovery. Priorities in column 1 ofthe Implementation Schedule are assigned as follows:

1. Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or to prevent the species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

2. Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in species populationlhabitat quality or some other significant negative impact short of extinction.

3. Priority 3 - All otheractions necessary to meet the recovery objectives and provide for full recovery ofthe species.

While the Endangered Species Act assigns a strong leadership role for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in recovery of listed species, it also recognizes the importance ofother Federal agencies, States, and private citizens in the recovery process. The Responsible Agency column ofthe Implementation Schedule identifies partners who can make significant contributions to specific recovery tasks. The identification of agencies within the Schedule does not constitute any additional legal responsibilities beyond existing authorities, i.e., Endangered Species Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Clean Water Act, etc.. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in developing the plan, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Cost Estimates provided in the Implementation Schedule identify foreseeable expenditures that could be made to implement the specific recovery tasks during a three year period. Actual expenditures by identified agencies/partners will be contingent upon appropriations and other budgetary constraints.

39 Key to acronyms used in ImDlementation Schedule

ADEM -Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management ALOWR -Alabama Office of Water Resources COB -Corps ofEngineers EPA -Environmental Protection Agency ES -Ecological Services Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GADNR -Georgia Department ofNatural Resources MSDEQ -Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality TNDEC ~ennessee Department ofEnvironment and Conservation USDA -~.S. Department ofAgriculture, includes Forest Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service USFWS -U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Other State and Federal agencies which may participate in implementation: Alabama Department ofConservation and Natural Resources Alabama Department ofIndustrial Relations Alabama Forestry Commission Alabama Surface Mining Commission Mississippi Department ofWildlife, Fisheries, and Parks Office ofSurface Mining Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency U.S. Geological Survey

Other partners and stakeholders may include concerned businesses and industries, research institutions, County and City governments, private landowners, conservation organizations, etc..

: MOBILE RIVERBASIN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST ESTIMATES (2) ($K) (1) USFWS

PRIORITY ~ TASK # TASK TASK DESCRIPTION DURATION Region Division Other FY I FY2 FY 3 COMMENTS/NOTES

1.0 Protect habitat integrity and quality continuous 4 ES All partners and stakeholders Cost absorbed under existing programs

2 1.1 Identify high biodiversity stream and continuous 4 ES Appropriate State and Federal 20 20 20 river reaches for protection agencies

2 1.2 Minimize aquatic habitat impacts continuous 4 ES Federal, State Agencies, County Cost absorbed under existing and local governments programs

2 1.3 Encourage development and 5 years 4 ES COF, EPA, State Governments 30 30 30 Geomorphic studies implementation of mining guidelines

2 1.4 Work with States to ensure water continuous 4 ES EPA, ADEM, MSDEQ, 30 30 30 Toxicity studies quality GADNR, TNDEC

2 1.5 Pronsote and support a watershed continuous 4 ES EPA, ADEM, MSDEQ, Cost absorbed under existing management approach to water quality GADNR, TNDEC programs

2 1.51 Develop coordinated plans to address 5 years 4 ES EPA, ADEM, MSDEQ, Cost absorbed under existing WTP effluents within watersheds GADNR, TNDEC, other State programs and local partners 2 1.52 Encourage alternative STP disinfection 5 years 4 ES EPA, ADEM, MSDEQ, Cost absorbed under existing measures GADNR, TNDEC programs

2 1 .53 Encourage compliancewith current continuous 4 ES EPA, ADEM, MSDEQ, Cost absorbed under existing water quality discharge limitations and GADNR, TNDEC programs regulations

1.54 Encourage effective silt and sediment continuous 4 ES EPA, USDA, ADEM, MSDEQ, Cost absorbed under existing runoffcontrol GADNR, TNDEC programs

2 1.55 Encourage standards for water 5 years 4 ES EPA, COE, ADEM, MSDEQ, Cost absorbed under existing withdrawal from tributary streams GADNR, TNDEC programs

(1) For— a compiete task description, refer to the nanative outline. (2) Reflects cost only for the implementation ofthe recovery task.

41 MOBILE RIVERBASIN AQUATICECOSYSI L~. LEMENTATION SCHEDULECOST ESTIMATES

RESPONSIBLE PARTY ($K)

USFWS

PRIORITY 4 TASK 4 TASK TASK DESCRIPTION DURATION Region Division Other FY I FY 2 FY 3 COMMENTS/NOTES

2 2.0 Consider options for river and stream Continuous 4 ES COF, EPA, USDA State Cost may be absorbed under mitigation strategies Agencies existing programs

2 2 I ldentit~’ appropriate nsitigation 3 years 4 ES COE, EPA, USDA, State Costs determined by measures measures Agencies recommended

2 2 Il Investigate partnerships and landowner 3 years 4 P COE, EPA, USDA, State Costs determinedby measures assistance Agencies recommended

2 3.0 Promote voluntary private land Continuous 4 ES II involved agencies and 50 50 50 stewardship to reduce nonpoint partners pollution

3 3.1 Promote land and waler stewardship Continuous 4 ES II involved agencies and 50 50 50 awareness partners

2 3.2 Encourage development and 5 years 4 ES II involved agencies and Some costs may be absorbed mplementation of adequate Streamside partners under existing programs Management Zones

2 4 0 Encourage and support community Continuous 4 ES II involved agencies and 50 50 50 based watershed planning and action partners 3 4 I Reduce land use/endangered species Indefinite 4 ES II involved agencies and 25 25 25 conflicts partners

5.0 Develop and implement progams and Continuous 4 ES II involved agencies and 100 100 100 materials to educate and involve the partners public in watershed stewardship

1 6.1 Survey and monitor imperiled aquatic Indefinite 4 ES Appropriate State and 100 100 100 species Federal agencies

1 6 2 Conduct anatomical and biochemical 10 years 4 ES Appropriate agencies and 100 100 100 analysis of endemic species partners

42 MOBILE RIVER BASIN AQtJATIC ECOSYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

COST ESTIMATES RESPONSIBLE PARTY ($K)

USEWS

PRIORITY # TASK l~ TASK TASK DESCRIPTION DURATION Region Division Other FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 COMMENTS/NOTES

6 3 Determine contaminant sensitivity 10 years 4 ES Appropriate agencies and 100 100 100 partners

1 64 Conduct life history research 10 years 4 ES Appropriate agencies and 100 100 tOO Includes subtasks 6.41 & 6.42 partners

7.0 evelop and implement technology for 10 years 4 ES Appropriate agencies and 50 50 50 Additional funds are currentl) maintaining and propagation of partners being expended at region leve endemic species in captivity

3 8.0 Reintroduce aquatic species into Indefinite 4 ES Appropriate agencies and 50 50 50 Includes subtasks restored habitats, as appropriate partners 8.1 - 8.3

3 9.0 Monitor progress and review Continuous 4 ES All partners and management strategy stakeholders

3 10.0 Coordinate ecosystem management Continuous 4 ES actions

3 10.1 Support the Mobile RiverBasin Continuous 4 ES All partners and Costs not determined Coalition stakeholders

43 PART IV

APPENDICES

APPENDICES 44 A. Listed Species Covered by this Plan 45 Species Accounts including Recovery Objectives and Criteria 46 B. Listed Species with Separate Recovery Plans 69 Species Accounts including Recovery Objectives and Criteria 70 C. Candidate Species and Species of Concern 88 D. Extirpated and Extinct Species 90 E. References for Additional Information 92 F. Ongoing Environmental and Conservation Programs 102 G. List of Recipients 105 H. Summary of Comments Received on the Draft Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan 118

44 APPENDIX A*

LISTED AQUATIC SPECIES COVERED SOLELY BY THE MOBILE RIVER BASIN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY PLAN

Fish

Alabama sturgeon Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Cherokee darter Etheostoma scotti Etowah darter Etheostoma etowahae Goldline darter Percina aurolineata

Mussels

Alabama moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus Coosa moccasinshell Medionidusparvulus Dark pigtoe Pleurobemafurvum Fine-lined pocketbook Lampsilis altilis Orange-nacre mucket Lampsilisperovalis Ovate Clubshell Pleurobemaperovatum Southern acornshell Epioblasma othcaloogensis Southern clubshell Pleurobema decisum Southern pigtoe Pleurobema georgianum Triangular kidneyshell Ptychobranchus greeni Upland combshell Epioblasma metastriata

Snails

Cylindrical lioplax Lioplax cyclostomaformis Flat pebblesnail Lepyrium showalteri Lacy elimia Elimia crenatella Painted rocksnail Leptoxis taeniata Plicate rocksnail Leptoxisplicata Round rocksnail Leptoxis ampla Tulotoma snail Tulotoma magn~fica

*A reference for the material contained in Appendices A and B was The Red Book U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened species ofthe southeast United States (The Red Book). Prepared by Ecological Services. Division of Endangered Species. Southeast Region. Govermnent Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1,242 pp. (two volumes).

: ALABAMA STURGEON

Scaphirhynchus suttkusi

FAMILY: Acipenseridae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Re2ister 65 FR 26437 May 5, 2000

DESCRIPTION: An elongate, slender fish growing to about 80 centimeters (cm) (31 in) in length and orange in coloration. A mature fish weighs 1-2 kilograms (2-4 pounds). The bead is broad and flattened at the snout. Bony plates cover the head, back and sides. The body narrows abruptly tothe rear, forming a narrow stalk between the body and tail.

HISTORIC RANGE: Large and small rivers of the Mobile River Basin, below the Fall Line, including the Black Warrior, Tombigbee, Alabama, Coosa, Tallapoosa, Cahaba, Mobile, and Tensaw Rivers.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Lower Alabama River below Millers Ferry Lock and Dam to the confluence of the Tombigbee River. An Alabama sturgeon has also been recently collected from the lower Cahaba River near its confluence withthe Alabama River.

POPULATION LEVEL: Population numbers of Alabama sturgeon appear to be very low, based on recent collection efforts.

HABITAT: Relatively stable river channels with flowing water.

LIFE HISTORY: Very little is known. Alabama sturgeon are believed to migrate upstream during late winter and spring tospawn. Eggs are adhesive and probably deposited on hardbottoms such as bedrock, cobble, or gravel. Larvae are planktonic, drifting with river currents. Postlarval stages settle out onto the river bottom, and juveniles and adults are benthic. Alabama sturgeon become sexually mature at 5..7 years of age. Spawning frequency is influenced by food supply and fish condition, and may occur every 1-3 years. Alabama sturgeon may live up to 15 years or more.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: The decline ofthe Alabama sturgeon is attributed to over-fishing, loss and fragmentation of habitat as a result of historical navigation development, and historical episodes ofwater quality degradation. Current threats primarily result from its reduced range and small population numbers. These threats are compounded by a lack of information on Alabama sturgeon habitat and life history requirements.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition implemented Alabama sturgeon conservation efforts in 1997, including broodstock collections, an attempt to spawn captive broodstock at a State hatchery, and habitat studies.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVEAND CRITERIA: To be developed.

46 CHEROKEE DARTER

Etheostoma scotti

FAMILY: Percidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Renister 59 FR 65512 December 20, 1994

DESCRIPTION: The Cherokee darter is a small-sized percid fish, adults being about 40 to 65 millimeters (mm)

(1.5 - 2.5 inches (in)) total length (TL). The body is elongate, subcylindrical (slightly compressed), with a relatively blunt snout. The side of adults is usuallypigmented with eight small dark olive black blotches which develop into verticallyelongate, slightly oblique bars in breeding adults, especially in males. The back usually has eight small dark saddles and intervening pale areas. The spinous dorsal (situated on the back) fm of breeding males has a dark olive black band at the base of the fm and nearly uniform russet orange red on the remaining fin, except for a blue margin.

HISTORIC RANGE: The Cherokee darter is endemicto the Etowah River system in north Georgia. Historically, it was thought tohave occurred in most tributaries of the watershed.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The Cherokee darter persists in about two dozen tributary streams ofthe middle and upper Etowah River. Present populations are isolated by Allatoona Reservoir and stretches of degraded habitat in tributary streams.

POPULATION LEVEL: Population size at known sites is generally small. However, total population level is not known.

HABITAT: Small to medium size creeks ofmoderate gradient in low current areas with large gravel, cobble, and small boulder substrates.

LIFE HISTORY: The life history is unknown. However, like most darters, the speciesspawns in spring, and probably lives two to three years.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Impoundments and deteriorating water and benthic habitat quality resulting from siltation and other pollutants threaten the species.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Riparian zoneprotection, stream sedimentation abatement, controlling agricultural runoff, and the wise planning of suburban development in the Etowah River watershed are major conservation measures for this species. The Cherokee County Water Authority is purchasingconservation easements on one tributary with Cherokee darter populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: To protect the Cherokee darter from further population fragmentation and decline, and to eventually delist it. Delisting will be considered when known populations are shown to be stable or increasing for a period of at least five years, and plans are developed to protect and monitor water and habitat quality in all occupied streams. The estimated date for delisting is 2010.

47 ETOWAH DARTER

Etheostoma etowahae

FAMILY: Percidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Renister 59 FR 65512 December 20, 1994

DESCRIPTION: The Etowah darter is a small-sized percid fish, adults being about 45 to 75 mm (1.75-3.0 in) TL. The body is elongate, moderately compressed, and has a moderatelypointed snout. The background body color is medium brown or gray-olive. The lower opercle (gill covers) has a have a pale bluish-green wash which is intensified in breeding males. The side is usually pigmented with 13 or 14 small dark blotches just below the lateral line. The breast in breeding males is dark greenish-blue. The spinous dorsal fm is suffuseddusky black olive with a red margin. The soft dorsal fm has four bands: dusky blackolive on the basal two-thirds, followed by red, white (sometimes with hint ofyellow), and black bands ofnearly equal width. The caudal (tail) fm is similarly pigmented except the ventral (on the abdominal side ofthe body) leading rays have a pale blue wash. The anal fm is suffused with greenish-blue and never has red marks, like greenbreast darters do. The pelvic fins are clear to duskyblack with a pale green blue wash; pectoral fins are dusky black. All these color patterns are more vivid in breeding males.

HISTORIC RANGE: The Etowah darter is endemic tothe Etowah River system in north Georgia. Historically, it may have occurred further downstream in the Etowah River mainstem. However, pre-impoundment (Allatoona Lake) records are not known.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The Etowah darter persists inthe uppermost Etowah River mainstem and two headwater tributaries, Amicalola and Long Swamp Creeks. The species is known from a total of 19 sites in these streams.

POPULATION LEVEL: Population size at known sites is generally small. However, total population level is not known.

HABITAT: Medium to larger creeks and small rivers ofmoderate to high gradient in swift current areas in riffles with large gravel, cobble, and small boulder substrates.

LIFE HISTORY: The life history is unknown. However, like most darters, the species spawns in spring, and probably lives two to three years.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Deteriorating water and benthic habitat quality resulting from siltation and other pollutants threaten the species.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: State sponsored survey efforts are continuing to define the range and population of this species. Riparian zone protection, stream sedimentation abatement, and controlling agricultural runoff in the Etowah River watershed are major conservation measures for this species.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: To protect the Etowah darter from further population decline, and to eventually delist it. Delisting will be considered when known populations are shown to be stable or increasing for a period of at least 5 years, and plans are developed to protect and monitor water and habitat quality in all occupied streams. The estimated date for delisting is 2010.

48 GOLDLINE DARTER

Percina aurolineata

FAMILY: Percidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Re&ster. 57 FR 14786, April 22, 1992

DESCRIPTION: A slender, medium-sized fish, the goldline darter is about 75 mm (3 in) long with brownish- redand amberdorsolateral (on the upper side) stripes. It differs from other members of the subgenus Hadropterus in the color pattern of its back, which is pale to dusky.

HISTORIC RANGE: Historically known from 79 kilometers (kin) (49 miles (mi)) of the Cahaba River, almost 11 km (7 mi) of the Little Cahaba River, and from Schultz Creek, also a Cahaba River tributary, Alabama; Coosawattee and its tributary Talking Rock Creek, Ellijay River and its tributaries Mountaintown and Boardtown Creeks, and the Cartecay River, Georgia. It is suspectedthat this species once ranged throughout the upper Alabama River drainage of Alabama and Georgia.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Currently known from 43 km (27 mi) of the Cahaba River, 11 km (7 mi) of the Little Cahaba River, and from Schultz Creek, CahabaRiver drainage, Alabama. The species also continues to be found in the Coosawattee River and its tributary Talking Rock Creek; Ellijay River, Mountaintown and Boardtown Creeks; and the Cartecay River, Georgia.

POPULATION LEVEL: Populations appearto be small and localized.

HABITAT: The goldline darter prefers a moderate to swift current and water depths greater than 0.5 meter (in) (2 feet (ft)). It is found over sand or gravel substrate interspersed among cobble and small boulders.

LIFE HISTORY: Little is known about this darters life history.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Water quality degradation, particularly sedimentation, has reduced the goldlinedarters range within the Cahaba River System and is the primary threat to the species throughout its range.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Investigations ofwater quality and population trends of the goldline darter in the Cahaba River and Little Cahaba River are ongoing and may provide indications of the decline of the species in this system. The Georgia populations are periodically monitored. Recovery efforts will focus on habitat protection and improving water quality.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: The recovery objective for the goldline darter is to delist the species. Delisting will be considered when: known populations of the goldline darter are shown to be stable or increasing for a period ofat least 5 years; there has been a demonstratedtrend in water quality improvement in the Cahaba River; and plans are developed and implemented to improve and monitor water and habitat quality in all occupied drainages. The estimated date for delisting is 2010.

49 AN OVERVIEW OF UNIONID MUSSEL ANATOMY AND LIFE HISTORY

Anatomy: Freshwater mussels in the family Unionidae have two shellsjoined together at the dorsal surface by a hinge ligament. Two sets ofhinge teeth on the inner dorsal surface keep the shells in position. The shells are secreted by a thin layer oftissue called the mantle, which envelops the body of the animal and also forms incurrent and excurrentopenings (siphons) at the posterior end. The anterior portion of the animal is usually buried inthe substrate. All mussels are filter feeders. Oxygen-bearingwater and food are drawn into the incurrent siphon, and waste-carrying water is simultaneously passed out the excurrent siphon. The food, mostly detritus (small particles of matter), bacteria and small planktonic (passively floating or drifting) organisms, is filtered from the water by the gills. Mussels have four internal gills, a pair on each side ofthe body.

Life History: Freshwater mussel females extrudeeggs through their oviducts and move them into the water tubes of the gills. During this time, the water tubes become more or less modified as gill pouches, or marsupia. Sperm shed by the males are drawn into the marsupial water tubes by ciliary (pertainingto small hair-like processes) action, and the fertilized eggs begin developing into unique larval forms known as glochidia. Depending on the genus, all, or only a portion ofthe gills may carry the developing embryos. Glochidia measure only a fraction of a mm (in) in size, and a single female may produce hundreds of thousands. The bivalved glochidium lacks most of the internal organs of the adults, and is not capable of swimming or crawling. All glochidia, with the possible exception oftwo species, appearto be obligate parasites of aquatic vertebrates. Most are parasitic on the gills or fins ofcertain species of fish, butthe infections are usually light and cause little harm. Some freshwatermussels discharge their glochidia individually when mature. Others release them attached along thin strands ofmucous which float and suspend the glochidia. In many species, the mass of glochidia within a singlewater tube sticks together and is released as a unit called a conglutinate. Conglutinates of various species may be similar in appearance to small worms, grubs, leeches, aquatic insects,or other fish food items. Fish apparently feed on these conglutinates, breaking them up and releasing the glochidia which may then become attached tothe fish’s gill filaments. Females of various species have a remarkable modification of the posterior edge ofthe mantle that may function to attractpotential host fish. When extended outside ofthe shell these flaps mimic aquatic insects or small fish, depending on the species, and may be waved or jerked to attract the attention of a hungry fish. When a fish attacks the lure, the flap is quickly retracted and the fish receives a mouthful of glochidia, some of which may successfullyattach to gill filaments. Several species have been recently identified that release all of their glochidia in a single mass called a superconglutinate. The glochidial mass, surprisingly similar in shape, coloration, and appearance to a minnow, is suspended at the end of a longtransparent mucous line. Large, piscivorous (fish-eating) fish may attempt to consume these lures and become infected with glochidia. Once ejected from the female, free-living glochidia have a life span of only a few days. Whenglochidia come into contact with a portion of gill or fin, their valves snap together, clamping overa portion ofthe fish tissue. The engulfedtissue is then slowly digested and absorbed, with perhaps additional nutrients absorbed from the host’s tissue fluid. In a short time, glochidia become completely encysted within the fish tissue. The duration ofthe parasitic period ranges from a week to several months, depending on species, temperature, and other factors. After the appropriate time, the glochidia metamorphose into juveniles, the cyst wall is rupturedand the juveniles drop to the bottom, often after having been transported for some distance by the host fish. Not all species of fish can successfully serve as hosts for all mussels. A given species of glochidium may readily attach to some fish but be quite unable to attach to others. Also, fish which have harbored a previous infection ofglochidia may become immune and slough off subsequent infections. Most mussels can apparently complete their metamorphosis on several related species of fish. The problem of preserving threatened and endangered mussels must therefore include preserving the native fish fauna, including their natural migrationand spawning patterns. Of all the freshwater invertebrates, the freshwater mussels probably have the longest natural life spans. While a few of the thin-shelled speciesmay live only 4 to 10 years, the thicker shelled river species normally survive over a span of20-40 or more years. Reaching sexual maturityrequires more than a year in all species; some of the slower growing species may require 4 or more years.

50 ALABAMA MOCCASINSHELL

Medionidus acutissimus

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Resister 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: A small, delicate species, approximately 30 mm (1.2 in) in length. Shell is narrowly elliptical (oval), ~ ith a well-developed, acute posterior ridge that terminates in a sharp point on the posterior ventral margin. The posterior slope is finely corrugated. The periostracum (outersurface) is yellow to brownish yellow, with broken green rays across the entire surface ofthe shell. The nacre (innersurface) is thin and translucent along the margins and salmon-colored in the umbos (beak cavity).

HISTORIC RANGE: Alabama River and tributaries, Alabama; Tombigbee River and tributaries, Mississippi, Alabama; Black Warrior River and tributaries, Alabama; CahabaRiver, Alabama; Coosa River and tributaries, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Luxapalila Creek (Lowndes County, Mississippi), Buttahatchee River (Lowndes/Monroe County, Mississippi, Lamar County, Alabama), and tributary Sipsey Creek (Monroe County, Mississippi), Lubbub Creek (Pickens County, Alabama), Sipsey River (Green/Pickens County, Alabama), Sipsey Forkand tributaries (Winston/Lawrence County,Alabama), Hatchet Creek (Coosa County, Alabama), and Holly Creek (Murray County, Georgia). POPULATION LEVEL: Populations are small and localized. Highest densities observed during field surveys have been from the Sipsey Fork and its headwater tributaries in BankheadNational Forest.

HABITAT: Inhabits sand/gravel/cobble shoals with moderate to strong currents in streams and small rivers.

LIFE HISTORY: Gravid females migrate tothe surface ofthe stream bottom between March and June, and have been observed anchored to gravel by a thread emanating from the anterior end. Blackspotted topminnows, tuskaloosa darter, redfm darter, blackbanded darter, and logperch have been identified as host fish.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS ASCITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and water quality degradation are theprimary causes ofthe decline ofthe Alabama moccasinshell. This species does not tolerate impoundment or channelization. The Alabama moccasinshell, one of the smallest unionid species, inhabits the interstices (small spaces between particles) of gravel and cobble substrates, and is very sensitive to sedimentation and erosion. Surviving populations are threatened by urban and agricultural runoff, surface mine drainage, small stream impoundment projects, industrial and sewage treatment plant discharges, and channel degradation caused by sand and gravel mining.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The U.S. Forest Service has funded mussel surveys instreams under its jurisdiction, and has implemented improved stream management zone guidelines on National Forests in Alabama. Surveys of potential habitat are being conducted by Service, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations. A flood control project on Luxapalila Creek, Mississippi, was modified by the Corps of Engineers to protect listed mussel habitat in that stream.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery of the Alabama moccasinshell to the point of delisting is unlikely in the near future. Therefore, the immediate recovery objective is to prevent the continued decline of this species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

51 COOSA MOCCASINSHELL

Medionidus parvulus

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Renister 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: A small species occasionally exceeding 40 mm (1.6 in) in length. Shell is thin, elongate, and elliptical to squarish in outline. Posterior ridge inflated, smoothly rounded, terminating in a broadly roundedpoint; the posterior slope is finely corrugated. Periostracumyellow-brown to dark brown, with fine green rays. Nacre blue, occasionally with salmon-colored spots.

HISTORIC RANGE: Cahaba River, Alabama; Sipsey Fork, Black Warrior River drainage, Alabama; Coosa River and tributaries, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Conasauga River (Murray/Whiffield County, Georgia, Bradley County, Tennessee), and its tributary, Holly Creek, (Murray County, Georgia).

POPULATION LEVEL: Populations aresmall and localized.

HABITAT: Inhabits sand/gravel/cobble shoals with moderate to strong currents in streams and small rivers.

LIFE HISTORY: Little is known ofthe Coosa moccasinshell. Closely related to the Alabama moccasinshell, it is likelythat gravid (containing eggs) females ofthis species also migrate tothe surface ofthe stream substrate during glochidial release periods. Host fish are probably darters and logperch.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and water quality degradation are the primary causes of the decline ofthe Coosa moccasinshell. This species does not tolerate impoundment or channelization. The Coosa moccasinshell is a small mussel that inhabits the interstices of gravel and cobble substrates, and is very sensitive to sedimentation and erosion. Surviving populations are threatened by household and agricultural runoff, surface mine drainage, and small stream impoundment projects.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The U.S. Forest Service has funded mussel surveys in streams under its jurisdiction, and has implement improved stream management zone guidelines in Alabama National Forests. Surveys ofpotential habitat are being conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery of the Coosa moccasinshell to the point of delisting is unlikely in the near future. Therefore, the immediate recovery objective is to prevent the continued decline of this species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

52 DARK PIGTOE

Pleurobemafurvum

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Re2ister 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: A small to medium-sized mussel, occasionally reaching 60 mm (2.4 in) in length. Shellis oval in outline. Umbos are located in the anterior portion ofthe shell. Posterior ridge is abruptlyrounded and terminates in a broadly rounded, subcentral, posterior point. The periostracum is dark reddish brown, with numerous and closely spaced, dark growth lines. The hinge plate (connection ofthetwo shells) is wide and the teeth areheavy and large, especially in olderspecimens. Nacre approaches white in the umbos, and is highly iridescent on the posteriormargin.

HISTORIC RANGE: Black Warrior River and tributaries, Alabama, above the fall line.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Sipsey Fork and its tributaries Caney, Brown, Rush, and Capsey Creeks (Winston/Lawrence County, Alabama); North River and its tributary Clear Creek (Fayette County, Alabama). Badly v~ Cered specimens have also found in the Locust Fork ofthe Black Warrior River near the Jefferson-

Blount C~ ty line (Alabama).

POPULATION LEVEL: Populations are localized, and numbers of individuals are very low in all known occupied streams.

HABITAT: Sand/gravel/cobble shoals and rapids in small rivers and large streams.

LIFE HISTORY: Life history is unknown, however, largescale stoneroller, Alabama shiner, blacktail shiner, creek chub, and blackspotted topminnow have been confirmed as hosts. REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and other forms of water quality degradation are the primary causes of decline of the dark pigtoe. This species can not tolerate impoundment. Surviving populations are threatened by impoundment projects, surface mine runoff, and household and agricultural runoff.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughoutthe historic range of the dark pigtoe are being conducted by Federal, State and privatebiologists in efforts to locate extant populations. The U.S. Forest Service has implemented improved stream management zone guidelines inthe Sipsey Fork and its headwaters in Bankhead National Forest.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery of the dark pigtoe to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The immediate recovery objective is to prevent the extinction of this species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

53 FINE-LINED POCKETBOOK Lampsilis altilis

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Register 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: The fine-lined pocketbook is a medium-sized mussel, sub-oval in shape, and rarely exceeds 100 mm (4 in) in length. The ventralmargin ofthe shell is angled posteriorly infemales, resulting in a pointed posterior margin. The periostracum is yellow-brown toblackish and has fine rays on the posterior half. The nacre is white, becoming iridescent posteriorly.

HISTORIC RANGE: Alabama River and tributaries, Alabama; tributary rivers and streams ofthe Tombigbee and Black Warrior Rivers, Mississippi and Alabama; Cahaba River and tributaries, Alabama; Tallapoosa River and tributaries, Alabama, Georgia; and the Coosa River and tributaries, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Upper Cahaba River and the Little Cahaba River,Alabama; Coosa River (Cherokee County, Alabama) and its tributaries, Conasauga River (Murray/Whiffield County, Georgia, Polk County, Tennessee) and Holly Creek(Murray County, Georgia), Terrapin Creek and South Fork Terrapin Creek (Cleburne County, Alabama), Big Canoe Creek (St. Clair County, Alabama), Cheaha Creek (Talladega/Clay County, Alabama), Yellowleaf Creekand its tributary Muddy Prong (Shelby County, Alabama), Kelly Creek and its tributary Shoal Creek (Shelby/St. Clair County, Alabama), Shoal Creek (Clebume County,Alabama), and Tallasahatchee Creek (Talladega County, Alabama); and the Tallapoosa River (Cleburne County, Alabama) and tributaries, Uphapee Creek(Macon County, Alabama), Choctafaula Creek (Macon/Lee County, Alabama), Chewacla Creek(Macon/Lee County, Alabama), Opintlocco Creek (Macon County, Alabama), Cane and Little Cane Creeks (Clebume County, Alabama), Muscadine Creek (Cleburne County,Alabama), Big Creek (Haralson County, GA), McClendon Creek (Paulding County, Georgia).

POPULATION LEVEL: Populations are small and localized within these streams. There is a potential of additional unknown, relict populations in small and moderate-sized streams.

HABITAT: Historically found in large riverto small creek habitats. Recent collections have been from stable sand/gravel/cobble substrate in moderate to swift currents in small streams above the Fall Line.

LIFE HISTORY: Gravid females have been collected March through June. They have been observed releasing glochidia in a single, largemass termed a superconglutinate. Redeye bass, spottedbass, largemouth bass, and green sunfish have been identified as suitable hosts.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and water quality degradation. This species can not tolerate impoundment. Surviving populations are threatened by urban and agricultural runoff, surface mine drainage, small stream impoundment projects, industrial and sewage treatment plant discharges, and channel degradation caused by sand and gravel mining.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The U.S. Forest Service has fundedmussel surveys in streams under its jurisdiction, and has revised and implemented protective stream management zone guidelines on National Forest lands inAlabama. Surveys of potential habitat are being conducted by State, Federal, and private biologists.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery of the fine-linedpocketbook to the point of delisting is unlikely in the near future. The immediate recovery objective is to prevent the continued decline ofthis species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations. A secondary objective is to work toward restoration of stream habitats to a degree that would allow expansion and/or reintroduction ofthis species.

54 ORANGE-NACRE MUCKET Lampsilisperovalis

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Register 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: A medium-sized mussel, 50-90 mm (2-3.6 in) in length. The shell is oval in shape and moderatelythick. The posterior m~rgin of the shell ofmature females is obliquely truncate (shortened). Nacre is usually rose colored, pink, or oc.a.~ionally white. Theperiostracum ranges from yellow to dark reddish brown, with or without green rays.

HISTORIC RANGE: Alabama River and tributaries, Alabama; tributary rivers and streams ofthe Tombigbee and Black Warrior Rivers, Mississippi and Alabama; CahabaRiver and tributaries, Alabama

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Buttahatchee River (Lowndes/Monroe County, Mississippi; Lamar County, Alabama), East Fork Tombigbee River (ItawambalMonroe County, MS), Luxapalila Creek (Monroe County,

Mississippi), Sipsey River (Greene/Pickens/TuscaloosaCounty, AL), Coalfire, Lubbub , and Trussels Creeks (Pickens County, Alabama), North River (Tuscaloosa/Fayette County, Alabama) and its tributary Clear Creek (Fayete Co”’ty, Alabama), Locust and Blackburn Forks ofthe Black Wan Civer (Blount County,Alabama), Sipsey Fot fthe Black Warrior (Winston/Lawrence County, Alabama) a butaries, Thompson, Flannagin, and Borden Cret~s (Lawrence County, Alabama) and Caney, North Fork Caney. brushy, Capsey, Rush, Brown, and Beech Creeks (Winston/Lawrence County,Alabama), Cahaba River (Bibb/Jefferson/Shelby County, Alabama), and Little CahabaRiver (Bibb/Shelby County, Alabama).

POPULATION LEVEL: Locally common in the Sipsey Fork and several ofits tributaries. All other populations are small and localized.

HABITAT: Currently restricted to high quality stream and small riverhabitat, the species is found on stable sand/gravel/cobble substrate in moderate to swift currents.

LIFE HISTORY: The orange-nacre mucket expels mature glochidia as a superconglutinate. Discharge of superconglutinates by this species has been observed between March and June, withreleases concentrated in early April. Redeye bass, spotted bass, and largemouth bass have been identified as host fish for the mucket.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERALREGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and water quality degradation. This species does nottolerate impoundment or channelization. Surviving populations are threatened by urban and agricultural runoff, surface mine drainage, small stream impoundment projects, industrial and sewage treatmentplant discharges, and channel degradation caused by sand and gravelmining. Superconglutinate lures would obviously be most effective in streams and rivers with low turbidity. The current distribution indicates that historic and gradual increases in chronic turbidity levels may be an important factor in the decline ofthe orange-nacre mucket.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The U.S. Forest Service has funded mussel surveys in streams under its jurisdiction, and has strengthened stream management zone guidelines on National Forest lands in Alabama. Other Federal and State agencies continue to conduct surveys ofhistorically occupied habitat. A flood control projecton Luxapalila Creek, Mississippi, was modified by the Corps of Engineers to protect listed mussel habitat in that stream.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery ofthe orange-nacre mucket to the point ofdelisting is unlikely in the near future. The immediate recoveryobjective is to prevent the continued decline ofthis species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

55 OVATE CLUB SHELL

Pleurobemaperovatum

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Resister. 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: A small to medium-sized mussel that rarely exceeds 50 mm (2.0 in) in length. Shell is oval to elliptical in shape, with nearlyterminal umbos. Posterior ridge well-developed, broadly rounded, and often concave. Posterior slope is produced well beyond the posterior ridge. Periostracum color varies from yellow to dark brown, and occasionally has broad green rays that may cover most of the umbo and posterior ridge. The nacre is white.

HISTORIC RANGE: Tombigbee Riverand tributaries, Alabama, Mississippi; Black Warrior River and tributaries, Alabama; Alabama River, Alabama; Cahaba River and tributaries, Alabama; Chewacla, Uphapee and Opintlocco Creeks in the Tallapoosa River drainage, Alabama: Coosa River and tributaries, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Buttahatchee River (Lowndes/Monroe County, Mississippi), Luxapalila Creek (Lowndes County, Mississippi), Sipsey River (Greene/Pickens/Tuscaloosa County, Alabama), Sucamoochee River (Sumter County, Alabama), Coalfire Creek (Pickens County, Alabama),Chewacla Creek (Macon County, Alabama), and Coosa River (Cherokee County, Alabama).

POPULATION LEVEL: Populations are small and localized.

HABITAT: Sand/gravel shoals and runs ofsmall rivers and large streams.

LIFE HISTORY: Unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUSAS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and other forms of water quality degradation are the primary causes of decline of the ovate clubshell. This species can nottolerate impoundments or channelization. Surviving populations are threatened by channelization, household and agricultural runoff, and channel erosion.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys ofpotential habitat throughout the historic range of the ovate clubshell are being conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locateunknown extant populations. A flood control project on the Luxapalila Creek, Mississippi, was modified by the Corps of Engineersto protect listed mussels habitat in that stream.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery of the ovate clubshell to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely inthe near future. The immediate recovery objective is to preventthe extinction of this species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

56 SOUTHERNACORNSHELL

Epioblasma othcaloogensis

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister. 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: The southern acomshell is a small speciesthat may grow up to 30 mm (1.2 in) inshell length. The shells are round to oval in outline and sexually dimorphic (two different forms of the same animal), with a swollen posterior ridge in females. The periostracum is smooth, shiny, andyellow in color.

HISTORIC RANGE: Coosa and CahabaRivers and their tributaries above the Fall Line in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: No living populations have been confinned in recent years.

POPULATION LEVEL: This species was last collected from tributaries of the upper Coosa River (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee). Surveys of this area since listing have not relocatedthe species. Potentially suitable habitat can still be found in several rivers and streams ofthe upper Coosa River drainage. It has notbeen found in the Cahaba River drainage for several decades.

HABITAT: The southern acorushell was historically restricted to shoals insmall rivers to small streams above the Fall Line. It was found on stable sand/gravel/cobble substrate in moderate to swift currents.

LIFE HISTORY: The host fish and other aspects ofthis species life history are unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and other forms ofwater quality degradation are the primary causes of decline. This species does not tolerate impoundment, and is highly sensitive to water quality degradation. Potential habitat is locally impacted by carpet mill and other industrial discharge, sewage treatment plant discharge, urban and agricultural runoff, and surface mine drainage.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat in the upper Coosa River drainage are being conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery ofthe southern acorushell to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely inthe near future. The immediate recovery objective is to prevent the extinction of this species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

57 SOUTHERN CLUBSHELL

Pleurobema decisum

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered,Federal Rezister 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: A medium sized mussel about 70 mm (2.8 in) long, with a thick shell, and heavyhinge plate and teeth. Shell outline roughly rectangular, produced (protruding) posteriorly withthe umbos terminal with the anterior margin, or nearly so. The posterior ridge ends abruptly with little development of the posterior slope at the dorsum of the shell. The periostracum color ranges from yellow to yellow-brown with occasional green rays or spots on the umbo in young specimens.

HISTORIC RANGE: Except for the Mobile Delta, this species was formerlyknown from every major stream system in the MobileRiver basin, including the Alabama River and tributaries, Alabama; Tombigbee River and tributaries, Mississippi and Alabama; Black Warrior River and tributaries, Alabama; Cahaba and tributaries, Alabama; Uphapee and Chewacla Creeks, Tallapoosa River drainage, Alabama; Coosa River and tributaries, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: East Fork of the Tombigbee River (ItawambalMonroe County, Mississippi), Buttahatchee River (Monroe/Lowndes County, Mississippi), Luxapalila Creek (Lowndes County, Mississippi), Sipsey River (Greene/Pickens/Tuscaloosa County, Alabama), Alabama River and Bogue Chitto Creek (Dallas County, Alabama) Chewacla Creek (Macon County, Alabama), Coosa River (Dead River) below Weiss Dam (Cherokee County, Alabama), Kelly Creek(Shelby County, Alabama), Big Canoe Creek (St. Clair County, Alabama), and Terrapin Creek (Cherokee County, Alabama).

POPULATION LEVEL: The southern clubshell is relatively common in localized reaches of the Buttahatchee and Sipsey Rivers. It is rare to uncommon in other occupied streams.

HABITAT: Sand/gravel/cobble substrate inshoals and runs of small rivers and large streams.

LIFE HISTORY: Host fish, reproductive behavior, and other aspects oflife history are unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, and water quality degradation are the primary causes of decline of the southern clubshell. This species can not tolerate impoundment or channelization. Surviving populations are threatened by channelization projects, household and agricultural runoff, and channel degradation caused by sand and gravel mining and/or channel maintenance projects.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughout the historic range of the southern clubshell are being conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations. A flood control project on Luxapalila Creek, Mississippi, was modified by the Corps of Engineersto protect listed mussel habitat in that stream.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery of the southern clubshell to the point ofdownlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The immediate recoveryobjective is to prevent the extinction of this species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

58 SOUTHERN PIGTOE

Pleurobema georgianum

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Register 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: A small to medium-sized mussel occasionally exceeding 60 mm (2.4 in) in length. Shell elliptical to oval in outline and somewhat compressed. Posterior slope is smoothly rounded. Pseudocardinal teeth (specialized hinge teeth unique to freshwater mussels) are small but well-developed, and the nacre is white. Periostracum is yellow to yellow-brown. Growth lines are numerous and may be dark brown. Small specimens may have green spots at the growth lines along the posterior ridge and near the umbo.

HISTORIC RANGE: Coosa River and its tributaries inAlabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Conasauga River (Murray/Whitfield County, Georgia, Bradley County, Tennessee) and Holly Creek (Murray County, Georgia), Shoal Creek (Cleburne County, Alabama), and Big Canoe Creek (St. Clair County, Aabama).

POPULATION LEVEL: Populations are small and restricted.

HABITAT: Sand/gravel/cobble shoals and runs in small rivers and large streams.

LIFE HISTORY: Unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and other forms of water quality degradation are the primary causes of decline ofthe southern pigtoe. This species can nottolerate impoundments. Surviving populations are threatened by household and agricultural runoffon private lands, and toa lesserdegree, by recreational activities on public lands.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The U.S. Forest Servicehas funded mussel surveys instreams under its jurisdiction, and has strengthened stream management zone guidelines on Forest Service lands in Alabama. Federal, State and private biologists are conducting surveys in streams within the historic range ofthis species.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery of the southern pigtoe to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The immediate recovery objective is to prevent the extinction of this species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

59 TRIANGULAR KIDNEYSHELL

Ptychobranchus greeni

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: Shell oval to elliptical in outline, may approach 100 mm (4.0 in) in length, compressed, and may be flattened ventralto the umbos. Posterior ridge broadly rounded, terminating in a broad, round point post- ventrally. Pseudocardinal teeth are heavy, and the laterals are heavy, gently curved and short. Periostracum is straw-yellow in young specimens, becoming yellow-brown in older ones; occasionallywith fine and wavy, or wide and broken, green rays anterior to the posterior ridge.

HISTORIC RANGE: Black Warrior River and tributaries, Alabama; Cahaba River, Alabama; Coosa River and tributaries, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Sipsey Fork and tributaries (Winston/Lawrence County, Alabama), Locust Fork (Blount County, Alabama), Cahaba River (Bibb County, Alabama), Kelly Creek (Shelby County, Alabama), Terrapin Creek(Cherokee County, Alabama), ConasaugaRiver (Murray/Whitfield County, Georgia, Bradley County, Tennessee), Holly Creek (Murray County, Georgia), Coosawattee River (Gordon County, Georgia), and Oostanaula River (Floyd/Gordon County, Georgia).

POPULATION LEVEL: Populations are small and localized inthe Sipsey Fork drainage and inthe Conasauga River. A single fresh dead shell is the only recent evidence ofthe species in the Cahaba River.

HABITAT: Sand/gravel/cobble substrate in shoals and runs of small rivers and large streams.

LIFE HISTORY: Gravid triangularkidneyshell females were observed in March 1994. Glochidia are packaged into conglutinates that mimic dipteran larvae (larvae of insects such as flies and mosquitos) (Hartfield and Hartfield 1996). Fish hosts have been identified as Warrior darter, tuskaloosa darter, blackbanded darter and logperch.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and other forms ofwater quality degradation representthe major threats to the triangular kidneyshell. This species does not tolerate impoundment. Surviving populations are threatened by urban and agricultural runoff, surface mine drainage, industrial and sewage treatment plant discharges, and localized household discharges.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughout the historic range of the ovate clubshell are being conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations. The U.S. Forest Service has strengthened stream management zone guidelines for streams under its jurisdiction in Alabama.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery ofthe triangular kidneyshell to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The immediate recovery objective is to preventthe extinction ofthis species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations.

60 UPLAND COMB SHELL

Epioblasma metastriata

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister 58 FR 14339, March 17, 1993

DESCRIPTION: Shells rarely exceed 60 mm (2.4 in) in length, are squarish in outline and are sexually dimorphic. Males havea broadly curved posterior ridge. Females have a sharply elevated posterior ridge that swells post-ventrally forming a well-developed sulcus (the groove anterior to the posterior ridge). Posterior margin of the female is broadly rounded and comes to a point anterior tothe posterior end. Periostracum color varies from yellowish-brown to tawny, and may or may nothave broken green rays, or small green spots. Hinge teeth are well-developed and heavy.

HISTORIC RANGE: Black Warrior River and tributaries, Cahaba River and tributaries, Alabama; Coosa River and tributaries, Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: No living populations have been confirmed in recent years.

POPULATION LEVEL: Last collected from a restricted portionof the Conasauga River in the vicinity of the Georgia/Tennessee State Line, surveys since listing have not relocated the species. Potentially suitable habitat can still be found in rivers and streams of the upper Coosa River drainage. It has not been found inthe Cahaba or Black Warrior River drainages for several decades.

HABITAT: Restricted to shoals in rivers and large streams above the Fall Line. It was found on stable sand/gravel/cobble substrate in moderate to swift currents.

LIFE HISTORY: This species likely releases glochidia during late spring or early summer. The host fish is unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUSAS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification, sedimentation, eutrophication, and other forms of water quality degradation are the primary causes of decline of the upland combshell. This species does not tolerate impoundment, and is highly sensitive to water quality degradation. Potential habitat is locally impactedby carpet mill and other industrial discharge, sewage treatment plant discharge, urban and agricultural runoff, and surface mine drainage.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat inthe upper Coosa River drainage are being conducted by Federal, State and privatebiologists in efforts to locate extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: Recovery ofthe upland combshell to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The immediate recoveryobjective is to prevent the extinction ofthis species by locating, protecting, and restoring stream drainages with extant populations. Survival of this species may eventually depend on captive propagation if extant populations are located.

61 CYHNDRICAL LIOPLAX

Lioplax cyclostomaformis

FAMILY: Viviparidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister 63 FR 57619, October28, 1998

DESCRIPTION: The shell of the cylindrical lioplax is elongate, reaching about 28 mm (1.1 in) in length. Shell color is light to dark olivaceous-green externally, and bluish inside of the shell opening.

HISTORIC RANGE: Collection records for the cylindricallioplax exist from the Alabama River, Alabama; Black Warrior River and tributaries, Prairie and ValleyCreeks, Alabama; Coosa River and tributaries Oothcalooga, Coahulla, Armuchee, Little Wills, Choccolocco, and YellowleafCreeks, Alabama and Georgia; and the Cahaba Riverand its tributary, Little Cahaba Riverin Alabama.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The cylindrical lioplax is currently known only from approximately 24 km (15 mm) of the Cahaba River above the Fall Line in Shelby and Bibb counties, Alabama.

POPULATION LEVEL: The snail is uncommon where it is currently found.

HABITAT: The cylindrical lioplax is found in mud under large rocks in rapid currents over stream and rivershoals.

LIFE HISTORY: Little is known ofthe biology or life historyof the cylindrical lioplax. It is believed to brood its young and filter-feed, as do other members ofthe Viviparidae. Life spans have been reported from 3 to 11 years in various species of Viviparidae.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Much of the former range ofthe cylindrical lioplax has been inundated by dam construction. The survivingpopulation is threatened by sediments and nutrients from nonpoint source pollution.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughoutthe historic range ofthe cylindrical lioplaxhave been conducted by Federal, State, and private sectorbiologists in efforts to locate additional extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: To be determined.

62 FLAT PEBBLESNAIL

Lepyrium showalteri

FAMILY: Hydrobiidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister. 63 FR 57619, October 28, 1998

DESCRIPTION: Hydrobiid snails are very small aquatic snails, often no larger than a pencil lead. The flat pebblesnail has a largeand distinct shell, relative to other hydrobiid species, and is also distinguished from other members of the family by its depressed spire (pointed top) and expanded, flattened body whorl (spiral). The shells are ovate in outline, flattened, and grow to 3.5-4.4mm (0.1-0.2 in) high and 4-5 mm (0.2 in) wide. The umbilical area is imperforate (no opening), and there are 2 to 3 whorls which rapidly expand.

HISTORIC RANGE: The flat pebblesnail was historically known from the mainstem Coosa River and the Cahaba and Little Cahaba Rivers in Alabama.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The flat pebblesnail is currently known from one site on the Little Cahaba River, Bibb County, and from a single shoal series on the Cahaba River above the Fall Line, Shelby County, Alabama.

POPULATION LEVEL: The snail may be locally common where it survives.

HABITAT: The flat pebblesnail is found attached to clean, smooth stones in rapid currents of river shoals.

LIFE HISTORY: Eggs are laid singly in capsules on hard surfaces. Little else is known of the natural history of this species.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Much ofthe former range ofthe flat pebblesnail in the Coosa River has been inundated by dam construction. The survivingpopulations in the CahabaRiver drainage arethreatened by sediments and nutrients from nonpoint source pollution.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughoutthe historic range of the flattened pebblesnail have been conducted by Federal, State, and private sectorbiologists in efforts to locate additional extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: To be determined.

63 LACY ELIMIA

Elimia crenatella

FAMILY: Pleuroceridae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister 63 FR 57619, October 28, 1998

DESCRIPTION: Growing to about 1.1 centimeters (cm) (0.4 in) in length, the shell of the lacy elimia is cone- shaped, strongly striate (grooved), and often folded in the upper whorls. Shell color is dark brown toblack, often purple inthe aperture, and without banding. The aperture is small and ovate.

HISTORIC RANGE: The lacy elimia was historically abundant in the Coosa River main stem from St. Clair to Chilton County, Alabama, and was also known in several Coosa River tributaries--Big Will’s, Kelley’s, Choccolocco, and Tallaseehatchee creeks in Alabama

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Lacyelimia currently survives inthree Coosa River tributaries--Cheaha, Emauhee, and Weewoka creeks, Talladega County, Alabama

POPULATION LEVEL: The snail may be locally common in small portions of Cheaha Creek.

HABITAT: Elimia snails are gill breathing snails that typically inhabit highly oxygenated waters on rock shoals and gravel bars.

LIFE HISTORY: Elimia snails generally graze on periphyton growing on the stream bottom. Individual snails are eithermale or female. Eggs are laid in early spring and hatch in about 2 weeks. Snails apparently become sexually mature in their first year, but, in some species, females may not lay until their secondyear. Some elimia may live as long as 5 years.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERALREGISTER: Much of the former range ofthe lacy elimia in the Coosa Riverhas been inundated by dam construction. Many tributary populations were apparently eliminated by historic pollution episodes. The surviving populations are threatened by sediments and nutrients from nonpoint source pollution.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughout the historic range ofthe lacy elimia have been conducted by Federal, State, and private sectorbiologists in efforts to locate additional extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: To be determined.

64 PAINTED ROCKSNAIL

Leptoxis taeniata

FAMILY: Pleuroceridae

STATUS AND SOURCE OFINFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister 63 FR 57619, October 28, 1998

DESCRIPTION: The painted rocksnail is a small to medium snail about 19 mm (0.8 in) in length and oval in shape. The aperture is broadly ovate, and rounded anteriorly. Coloration varies from yellowish toolive-brown, and usually with four dark bands.

HIS ~CRANGE: The painted rocksnail had the largestrange of any rocksnail in the Mobile River Basin. It was cally known from the Coosa River and tributaries from the northeastem corner of St. Clair County, Alabax downstream into the mainstem of the Alabama River to Claibome, Monroe County, Alabama, and the Cahaba River below the Fall Line in Perry and Dallas counties, Alabama.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The painted rocksnail is currently known from the lower reaches of three Coosa River tributaries--Choccolocco Creek, Talladega County; Buxahatchee Creek, Shelby County; and Ohatchee Creek, Calhoun County, Alabama.

POPL. .TION LEVEL: The snail may be locally common in small portions of these streams.

HABITAT: Rocksnails are found attached to cobble, gravel, or other hard substrates inthe strong currents of rapids and shoals.

LIFE HISTORY: Adult rocksnails move very little, and females probably glue their eggs to stones inthe same habitat. Longevity in the painted rocksnail is unknown, however, other rocksnails have been reported to live up to two years.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUSAS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Much of the formerrange ofthe painted rocksnail has been inundated by dam construction. Many tributary populations were apparently eliminated by historic pollution episodes. The surviving populations are threatened by sediments and nutrients from nonpoint source pollution.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughoutthe historic range of the painted rocksnail have been conducted by Federal, State, and private sector biologists in efforts to locate additional extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: To be determined.

65 PLICATE ROCKSNAIL

Leptoxisplicata

FAMILY: Pleuroceridae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister. 63 FR 57619, October 28, 1998

DESCRIPTION: The plicate rocksnail grows to about 20 mm (0.8 in) in length. Shells are subglobose with broadly rounded apertures. The body whorl may be ornamented with strong folds or plicae. Shell color is usually brown, occasionally green, and often withfour equidistant(equally distant) color bands. The columella (central column or axis) is smooth, rounded, and typically pigmented in the upper half. The aperture is usually bluish-white, occasionally pinkor white. The operculum (plate that closes the shellwhenthe snail is retracted) is dark red, and moderately thick.

HISTORIC RANGE: The plicate rocksnail historically occurred inthe Black Warrior River and its tributary, the Little Warrior River, and the Tombigbee River.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Status survey efforts in the early 1990’s found populations ofplicate rocksnails only in an approximately 88 km (55 mi) reach of the Locust Forkof the Black Warrior River, Jefferson and Blount counties, Alabama. Surveys during 1996 and 1997 indicated that the snail had recently disappeared from the upstream two-third portion ofthat habitat and now appears restricted to an approximately 32 km (20 mi) reach in Jefferson County.

POPULATION LEVEL: The snail is uncommon to rare where it is found.

HABITAT: Rocksnails are found attached to cobble, gravel, or other hardsubstrates in the strong currents ofrapids and shoals.

LIFE HISTORY: Adult rocksnails move very little, and females probably glue their eggs to stones in the same habitat. Longevity inthe plicate rocksnail is unknown, however, other rocksnails have been reported to live up to two years.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: The plicate rocksnail was apparently eliminated from much of its historic range due to historic pollution episodes. The surviving population in theLocust Fork River is threatened by sediments and nutrients from nonpoint source pollution.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughout the historic range ofthe plicate rocksnail have been conducted by Federal, State, and private sector biologists in efforts to locate additional extant populations. A captive breedingpopulation has been established at the Southeast Aquatic Research Institute, however, to date the snailhas failed to breed in captivity.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: To be determined.

66 ROUND ROCKSNAIL

Leptoxis ampla

FAMILY: Pleuroceridae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister 63 FR 57619, October 28, 1998

DESCRIPTION: The round rocksnail grows to about 20 mm (0.8 in) in length. The shell is rounded, with an ovately roundedaperture. The body whorl may be omamented with folds. Color may be yellow, dark brown, or olive green, usuallywith four entire or broken bands.

HISTORIC RANGE: The round rocksnailwas historically found in the Cahaba River, and its tributary, Little Cahaba River, andthe Coosa River andtributaries--Canoe, Kelly’s, Ohatchee, Yellowleaf, and Waxahatchee Creeks in Alabama.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The round rocksnail is currently known from a shoa ~.eriesin the Cahaba River, and from the ~rreach of the Little Cahaba River, and the lower reaches of Shade ai~ CA Six-mile creeks in Alabama.

POPUL~~ kON LEVEL: The snail may be locally common in small portions of these streams

HABITAT: Rocksnails are found attached tocobble, gravel, or otherhard substrates inthe strong currents of rapids and shoals.

LIFE HISTORY: Adult rocksnails move very little, and females probably glue their eggs to stones in the same habitat. Longevity inthe round rocksnail is unknown, however, other rocksnails have been reported to live up to two years.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERALREGISTER: Some ofthe former range ofthe round rocksnail inthe Coosa River has been inundated by dam construction. Many tributary populations were apparently eliminated by historic pollution episodes. The surviving populations in the Cahaba River drainage are threatened by sediments and nutrients from nonpoint source pollution.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughoutthe historic range ofthe round rocksnail havebeen conducted by Federal, State, and private sectorbiologists inefforts to locate additional extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: To be determined.

67 TULOTOMA SNAIL

Tulotoma magn{fica

FAMILY: Viviparidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister. 56 FR 800, January 9, 1991

DESCRIPTION: A gill-breathing snail with a globular (spherical) shell, reaching a size somewhat larger than a golf ball, and typically ornamented with spiral lines ofknob-like structures. Adultsize and ornamentation distinguish it from all other freshwater snails in the Coosa-Alabama River system. Tulotoma is also distinguished by its oblique aperture with a concave margin.

HISTORIC RANGE: Coosa River and tributaries, St. Clair County, Alabama, to the Alabama River, Clarke/Monroe counties, Alabama.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Coosa River below Jordan Dam, Elmore Co., Kelley Creek, Weogufka, Hatchet, Ohatchee, Choccolocco, Yellowleaf Creeks, Coosa River drainage, Alabama.

POPULATION LEVEL: Results of a 3-year study by the Alabama Power Company indicate the tulotoma may number in the millions within a 6-mile reach of the Coosa River below Jordan Dam. Populations are extremely restricted, but relatively abundant, in Kelley, Weogufka, Hatchet, and Choccolocco Creeks. Only a few individuals have been observed in Ohatchee and Yellowleaf Creeks.

HABITAT: Tulotoma are found under large rocksin shoals and runs with moderate to swift currents.

LIFE HISTORY: Tulotoma congregate in colonies under large rocks or boulders. Studies ofthe extant Coosa River population indicates a life span of 2 to 4 years, however, the size and bulk ofhistorically collected shells may indicate longer life spans in historic populations. Offspring are born alive. Although females give birth year round, reproduction is concentrated in the spring. Tulotomagrow rapidly and reach sexual maturity in about 1 year. Dispersal is concentrated during periods of high water.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Extensive impoundment of the Coosa-Alabama River System for navigation and hydropower, industrial and urban discharges, and agricultural runoff. Surviving populations are threatened by urban, household, and agricultural runoff, and industrial and sewage treatment plant discharges.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughoutthe historic range of tulotoma have been conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations. The Alabama Power Company has increased minimumflows below Jordan Dam and has completed a 3-year population and life history study of the species. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources has investigated habitat differences between populations and compared genetic relations between populations by electrophoresis.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE AND CRITERIA: The immediate recovery objective for tulotoma is to reclassif~’ the species from endangered tothreatened status. The estimated date for reclassification is 2002. Delisting will be considered when four ofthe known tributary populations (Kelley, Weogufka, Hatchet, and Choccolocco Creeks) are shown to be stable or increasing, and plans are developed and implemented to improve and monitor water and habitat quality in those stream drainages. These criteria may be revised on the basis ofnew information generated from the completion of recovery tasks. The estimated date for delisting is 2010.

68 APPENDIX B

LISTED AQUATIC SPECIES WITH RECOVERY PLANS

This appendix consists of summary sheets for listed aquatic species with separate Recovery Plans which occur in the Mobile River Basin. Recovery Plans cited may be purchased from:

Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403, or 800/582-3421

Some ofthese recovery plans can also be downloaded from the Internet at http://endangered.fws.gov/recovery/recplans/index.htm.

Turtles Alabama redbelly turtle Pseudemys alabamensis Flattenedmusk turtle Sternotherus depressus

Fish Amber darter Percina antesella Blue shiner Cyprinella caerulea Cahaba shiner Notropis cahabae Conasauga logperch Percinajenkinsi Gulfsturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi Pygmy sculpin Cottuspygmaeus Watercress darter Etheostoma nuchale

Mussels Black clubshell Pleurobema curtum Flat pigtoe Pleurobema marshalli Heavy pigtoe Pleurobema taitianum Inflated heelsplitter Potamilus inflatus Southern combshell Epioblasma penita Stirrupshell Quadrula stapes

Plants Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella Sagittaria secundWolia Kral’s water-plantain

69 ALABAMA REDBELLY TURTLE

Pseudemys alabamensis

FAMILY: Emydidae

STATUS ANDSOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister. 52 FR 22939, June 16, 1987

DESCRIPTION: This is a large (20 to 25 cm or 8 to 10 in carapace (top shell) length) freshwater turtle, normally with an orange to reddish plastron (bottom shell) and a prominent notch atthetip ofthe upper jaw, bordered on either side by a tooth-like cusp. The elongated carapace is highly arched and elevated along the midline; its highest point ‘ten anterior to the midbody where the carapace is widest. The carapace is brown to olive, with yellow, ora reddish streaksand mottling that form distinct, light vertical bars on the pleural scutes (the series of pair~ ~tesrunning on either side of the midline scutes (vertebrals) on the carapace). The skin is olive to black with yellow to light orange stripes. The Alabama redbelly turtle seems to feed almost entirely on aquatic plants.

HISTORIC RANGE: Mobile River System in Baldwin and Mobile Counties, Alabama.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The Mobile Riverbelow David Lake in Mobile County.

POPULATION LEVEL: The Alabama redbelly turtle appears to be most abundant from a point on the Tensaw River adjacent to Hurricane Landing south along the riversystem to Interstate Highway 10 (21 km or 13 mi). Total population size is unknown.

HABITAT: The principalhabitat of the species consists of broad, vegetated expanses ofshallows inbackwater areas ofthe bays which are ito 2 meters (in) (3.3 to 6.6 feet (ft)) indepth. The turtles use dense beds of aquatic vegetation for basking and predator avoidance, in addition to food.

LIFE HISTORY: The turtles lay their eggs in late spring and early summer on sand bars or islands. Juvenile habits are unknown. Turtles feed on submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation. Life span is unknown, however one captive turtle survived 11 years.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: The turtle’s primary nestingsite, Gravine Island, is a 20-acre dredged material disposal site located on one end of an island ofwooded swamp. This area is intensively used for recreational activities which disturb nesting habitat, and have apparently reduced reproductive success and recruitment. Predation by fish crows, alligators, and feral pigs is also affecting the turtles and its nest success. Alabama redbelly turtles have beentaken for food, for sale as pets, and as an incidental catch by commercial fisherman using gill, hoop and trammel nets, and crab pots. The turtles eggs have apparently also been gathered by local residents for eating.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Over 20,000 acres have been acquired in the Mobile-Tensaw Delta by the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers under the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Wildlife Mitigation Project, including Gravine Island. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources is managing these lands as part ofthe Mobile-Tensaw Delta Wildlife Management Area. Studies funded by these agencies are currently being conducted to develop information that will assist in management and protection of the turtles.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To reclassifythe Alabama redbellyturtle from endangered to threatened status.

70 FLATTENED MUSK TURTLE

Sternotherus depressus

FAMILY: Kinostemidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Rezister 52 FR 22418, June 11, 1987

DESCRIPTION: The flattened musk turtle is a small aquatic turtle with a distinctly flattened carapaceup to 119 mm (4.7 in) long. Keels (carapace ridges) are virtually, if not altogether, lacking. The carapace is dark brown to orange with dark-bordered seams and is slightly serrated posteriorly. The plastron is pinkto yellowish. The head is greenish with a darkreticulum (net-like pattern) that often breaks up to form spots on the top ofthe snout. Stripes on the top and sides of the neck, if present, are narrow. There are two barbels on the chin, all four feet are webbed, and males have thick, long, spine-tipped tails.

HISTORIC RANGE: The flattened musk turtle occurs in the upper Black Warrior River system of Alabama. Present populations are believed to exist upstream from Bankhead Dam in Blount, CulIman, Etowab, Jefferson, Lawrence, Marshall, Tuscaloosa, Walker, and Winston counties. Historically, the flattenedmusk turtle was reported as occurring in this river system from the fall line northward.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Portions ofLocust Fork, Mulberry Fork, and Sipsey Fork ofthe Black Warrior River and some of their tributaries.

POPULATION LEVEL: Exact population numbers are unknown. Within the current range, only about 15 percent ofthe habitat seems to contain healthy reproducing populations. Range wide the species appears to be declining.

HABITAT: Although the flattenedmusk turtle is capable of living ina variety of streams and lakes, its optimum habitat appears tobe free-flowing large creeks or small rivers having vegetated shallows about 0.6 m (2 ft) deep alternating with pools 1 to 1.5 m (3.6 to 5 ft) deep. These pools have a detectable currentand an abundance of crevices and submerged rocks, overlapping flat rocks, or accumulations ofboulders. Theseaquatic habitats have should have an abundant molluscan fauna, low silt load and deposits, low nutrient content and bacterial count, moderate temperature, and minimal pollution.

LIFE HISTORY: The diet of the flattened musk turtle consists primarily of mollusks when available, and sometimes insects. Captive turtles also feed readilyon worms, but it is unknown as to what extent they are utilized under natural conditions. This turtle reaches reproductive maturity at 4 to 8 years of age. Females usually deposit one to two clutches of eggs a year with one to three eggs per clutch.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitatmodification, sedimentation, over-collecting, and water quality degradation are the primary causes ofthe decline of the flattened musk turtle. Surviving populations are threatened by siltation arising from agriculture, forestry, and strip mining; over collecting forthe commercial trade; and chemical and sewage pollution.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Studies on population status have been conducted. Surveys have been conducted by Federal, State and private interests.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To delist the flattened musk turtle.

71 AMBER DARTER

Percina antesella

FAMILY: Percidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Register. 50 FR 31603, September 5,1985

DESCRIPTION: The amber darter is a small, slender-bodied fish rarely exceeding 60 mm (2.5 in) in length. The upper body is golden brown with four dark saddles, and its belly is yellow to cream colored. The spinous (containing spines) dorsal fm is clear, with a vague gray-black basal and marginalband. The soft dorsal, caudal, and pectoral (breast) fin rays have clusters of dark chromatophores (pigment-hearing cell), while their membranes are unpigmented. The anal and pelvic (lower trunk) fins are unpigmented except for a few clusters of dark chromatophores.

HISTORIC RANGE: The amber darter is historically known from the Conasauga River, Georgia and Tennessee, and from the Etowah River and its tributary, Shoal Creek, Georgia.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The darter is currently known to occur in approximately 54 kilometers (33.5 miles) of the Conasauga River, Georgia and Tennessee.

POPULATION LEVEL: Population level is unknown.

HABITAT: Vegetated, shallow riffles with sand/gravel/cobble substrates.

CRITICAL HABITAT: The Conasauga Riverfrom U.S. Route 411 bridge in Polk County, Tennessee, downstream approximately 54 km (33.5 mi) through Bradley County, Tennessee, and Murrayand Whiffield counties, Georgia, to Tibbs Bridge Road bridge (Murray County Road 1 09/Whitfield County Road 100).

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: The species was listed due to its’ limited range, threats presented by a proposed flood control and water supply reservoir inthe Conasauga River, and water quality degradation. Threatsto the amber darter include activities that degrade habitat and water quality, such as land use changes, chemical spills, increased logging activity, road and bridge construction, stream channel modifications, and increases in agricultural and urban runoff.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The water supply project was amended through consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. An overbank floodplain reservoir has been constructed that has minimal effect on the Conasauga River channel. Fish studies are being conducted as part ofa monitoring agreement to determine effects of water withdrawal on the amber darterand other species in the stream.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To protect the amber darter from future decline, and to eventually delist the species.

72 BLUE SHINER

Cyprinella caerulea

FAMILY: Cyprinidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Rezister 57 FR 14790, April22, 1992

DESCRIPTION: The blue shiner is a medium-sized minnow that may grow up to 90 mm (3.5 in) standardtotal length. It often appears to be dusky blue with pale yellow fins. This fish has diamond-shaped scales outlined with melanophores (dark pigment-bearing cells). The lateral line is distinct.

HISTORIC RANGE: Historically known from the Cahaba River in Alabama, and the Coosa River and tributaries in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Its current Alabama range is Weogufka Creek, Choccolocco Creek, the lower reach of Little River, and Spring Creek in the Coosa River drainage. In Tennessee, the range includes the Conasauga River and a tributary, Minnewauga Creek. In Georgia, the blue shiner is found only in portions of the Conasauga River.

POPULATION LEVEL: Population levels are unknown. The blue shiner was lastcollected from the Cahaba River System in 1971. It has beenextirpated from the mainstem of the Coosa River and the Coosawattee River.

HABITAT: The blue shiner occurs over a sand and gravel substrate among cobble in cool, clear water.

LIFE HISTORY: Spawning is believed to occur early May through late August. Life span is believed to be 3 years.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Water quality degradation has reduced the blue shiner’s range. Populations havebeen extirpated because ofurbanization, sewage pollution, strip-mining activities, and poor land managementpractices. Construction ofreservoirs has fragmentedand isolated some populations.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Investigations of water quality, population trends, and habitat utilization inthe Cahabaand Conasauga Rivers have been conducted. Somepopulations in Georgia and Tennessee are periodically surveyed.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To delist the blue shiner.

73 CAHABA SHINER

Notropis cahabae

FAMILY: Cyprinidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister 55 FR 42966, October 25, 1990

DESCRIPTION: The Cahaba shiner is a small, delicate-bodied, silvery- coloredfish about 6 cm (2.5 in) long with a peach-colorednarrow stripe over thedark lateral stripe. This species differs from themimic shiner, a closely related species, by a lateral stripe that does not expandbefore the caudal spot and by the absence ofa predorsal dark blotch. Also,the Cahaba shiner’s dorsal, caudal, and peduncle scales (scaleswhere the tail meets the body) are uniformly dark and pigmented and its peduncle scales are broadly outlined and diffuse.

HISTORIC RANGE: The Cahaba shiner is the only North American large stream fish that is endemicto the main st~ — 3f a single river. In the recent past, the Cahaba shiner was known from about 121 km (76 mi) ofthe Cahaba F. from 4.8 km (3 mi) northeastof Heiberger in Perry County to Highway 52 bridge near Helena in Shelby C~inty. There is speculation (Ramsey 1982; citation in Appendix E) that the Cahaba shiner oncehad a wider historical distribution which may have included the Coosa River.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The Cahaba shiner inhabits about 96 km (60 mi) ofthe CahabaRiver in Alabama, from 4.8 km (3 mi) northeast of Heiberger to 2.3 km (3.7 mi) above Booth Ford. The Cahaba shiner was recently found in a 106 km (64 mi) reach of the Locust Fork drainage of the Black Warrior River, from near Littleton upstream to the Alabama Highway 160 crossing near Cleveland, Alabama.

POPULATION LEVEL: According to recent collection efforts, populations aredeclining in the Cahaba River.

HABITAT: Cahaba shiner habitat appears to be large shoal areas ofthe main channel of the Cahaba and Locust Fork Rivers. The shiner is found in the quieter waters less than 0.5 m deep (1.64 ft),just below swift riffle areas. The Cahabashiner seems to preferpatches ofsandy substrate at the edge oforscattered throughout gravel beds or downstream of larger rocks and boulders.

LIFE HISTORY: Spawns from late May through June.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Water quality degradation is the primary cause of the decline ofthe Cahaba shiner. Sewage treatment plant effluents, drainage from limestone quarries and strip mining, and nonpoint source sedimentation continue to threatenthe species.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The counties of Perry and Dallas, which border over a third ofthe Cahaba River’s lower main channel, passed resolutions in 1981 establishing scenic corridors along the riveras buffer zones. Parties planning activities which might impact the environment inthese corridors are required to obtain a permit from their County Commission. A Cahaba River Society, comprised ofbiologists, conservationists, land-owners and business leaders, has also been organized to protectthe river.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To reclassify the Cahaba shiner to threatened status.

74 CONASAUGA LOGPERCH

Percinajenkinsi

FAMILY: Percidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister. 50 FR 31597 September5, 1985 DESCRIPTION: The Conasauga logperch grows to approximately 15 cm (6 in) in length and is characterized by having many tiger-like vertical stripes over a yellow background and a pig-like conical snout. HISTORIC RANGE: Apparently restrictedto the upper Conasauga River in Tennessee and Georgia. No historic records are known from other locations.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The Conasauga logperch is found in about 18 km (11 mi) ofthe upper Conasauga River, where it has been observed from the vicinity of Halfway Branch, Polk County, Tennessee, downstream to the Georgia State Highway 2 Bridge, Murray County, Georgia.

POPULATION LEVEL: The population level of the Conasauga logperch is unknown, but survey results suggest a low population density.

HABITAT: The Conasauga logperch has most commonly been collected in poolareas having a perceptible current and a substrate of rubble, gravel and sand. Riffles are used at least seasonally for spawning.

LIFE HISTORY: No life history studies have been conducted on this species. Available information indicates that spawning occurs inthe spring in fast riffles over gravelsubstrate. The fish probably reaches sexual maturity after 1 year and has a maximum life span of at least 4 years.

CRITICAL HABITAT: Conasauga River from the confluence of Halfway Branch with the Conasauga River in Polk County, Tennessee, downstream approximately 18 km (11 mi) to the Georgia State Highway 2 Bridge, Murray County, Georgia.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERALREGISTER: The species was listed due to its’ limited range, threats presented by a proposed flood control and water supply reservoir in the Conasauga River, and water quality degradation. Threats to the Conasaugalogperch include activities that degrade habitat and water quality, such as land use changes, chemical spills, increasedlogging activity, roadand bridge construction, stream channel modifications, and increases in agricultural and urban runoff.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The water supply project was amendedthrough consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. An overbank flood plain reservoir has been constructed that has minimal effect on the ConasaugaRiver channel. Fish studies are being conducted as part of a monitoring agreement to determine effects of reservoir construction and operation on the Conasauga logperch and other species inthe stream.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: Recovery of the Conasauga logperch to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future due to low population levels and continued impacts on its’ stream habitat. Therefore,the immediate recovery objective is to prevent the extinction of this species by protecting its’ habitat in the Conasauga River.

75 GULF STURGEON Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi

FAMILY: Acipenseridae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Register 56 FR 49653,

September 30, 1991 DESCRIPTION: The gulfsturgeon is an anadromous fish with a sub-cylindrical body imbedded with bony plates or scutes. The snout is greatly extended and blade like with four fleshy chin barbels in front ofthe mouth, which is protractile on the lower surface ofthe head. The upper lobe of the tail is longer than the lower lobe. The subspecies is light brown to darkbrown in color and pale underneath.

HISTORIC RANGE: Gulfsturgeon historically occurred inmost major river systems from the Mississippi River to the Suwannee River, Florida, and marine waters of the Central and Eastern Gulfof Mexico, south to Florida Bay. In the Mobile River basin, Gulfsturgeon have beenreported from the Mobile, Tensaw, Tombigbee, and Alabama Rivers, and Mobile Bay.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: In recent years, Gulf sturgeon have been caught or reported from the mouth ofthe Mississippi River; Lake PontchartrainlLake Borgne/Rigolets, and tributaries ofthe Lake Pontchartrainbasin; Pearl River and Bogue Chitto River; Mississippi Sound; Biloxi Bay; Pascagoula River basin, including the bay, Pascagoula River, Chickasawhay, Leaf, and Bowie Rivers; Mobile River Basin, including the Bay, Mobile, Tensaw, Blakeley, Tombigbee, and Alabama Rivers; Pensacola Bay basin, including the bay, Escambia, Conecuh, Blackwater, and Yellow Rivers; Choctawhatchee Bay basin, including Santa Rosa Sound, Choctawhatchee Bay, Choctawhatchee River, and Pea River; Apalachicola Bay and River, and Brothers RI~Cer; Ochlockonee River; Suwannee River; Tampa Bay; and Charlotte Harbor.

POPULATION LEVEL: Gulf sturgeon population estimates are unknown throughout its range; however, estimates have been completed for the Apalachicola and Suwannee rivers. Since 1984. the estimated annual number of fish inthe Apalachicola River ranged from 96-131, with a mean of 115. In the Suwannee River, the estimated population size has ranged between 2,250-3,300 sturgeon averaging 18 kilograms (39.7 pounds) since 1986.

HABITAT: Gulf sturgeon are anadromous, spending 8 to 9 months each year in rivers, and 3 to 4 months in estuaries or Gulf waters. Sturgeon less than 2 years old may remain in riverine and estuarine habitats throughout the year. It is believed that preferable riverine habitat consists of deep channels or holes with sand/gravel/cobble/rock bottoms.

LIFE HISTORY: Timing, location and habitat requirements for Gulf sturgeon spawning are not well documented. Most subadult and adult Gulf sturgeon ascend coastal rivers from the Gulf of Mexico in late winter, early spring. Someadults are sexually mature and inripe condition during this time. Gulf sturgeon eggs have been collected in March and April. Sexual maturity is reached at 7-8 years age.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Over-exploitation by fishermen, habitat modification, and water quality degradation are the primary factors believed to have led to the decline of the sturgeon. Sturgeon continue to be caught incidental to other fisheries, and habitat continues to be affected by dredging and water quality degradation. Sturgeon migration and reproduction are impeded by impoundments.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Federal and State agencies have been conducting population, life history, and habitat studies on the Gulf sturgeon, and developing culture techniques for the species.

76 RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To prevent further reduction of existingwild stock; establish population levels that would allow delisting ofthe Gulf sturgeon in discrete management units; and establish population levels that could withstand directed fishing pressure within discrete management units.

77 PYGMY SCULPIN

Cottuspygmaeus

FAMILY: Cottidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Register 54 FR 39846, September 28, 1989

DESCRIPTION: The pygmy sculpin is a small fish which rarely exceeds 45 mm (1.8 in) in length. It has a large head, moderatelyrobust body, and an incomplete lateral line. Its coloration varies by sex, maturity, and breeding condition; but, its pigmentation is generally consistent with up tothree dorsal saddles and mottled or spottedfins. Juveniles have a grayish-black body with three light-colored saddles. With maturity, the body becomes lighter; the grayish-black color that remains forms two dark saddles. Injuveniles, the head is black, changing to white with small, scattered melanophores in adults. In breeding males, the darkspots in the spinous dorsal fm enlarge and become more intense and the fin margin becomes reddish orange. The entire body becomes suffused withblack pigmentwhich almost completely conceals the underlying pattern. The breeding color of females tends to be slightly darker than in non-breeding females.

HISTORIC AND CURRENT RANGE: This sculpin is only known from Coldwater Spring, Calhoun County, Alabama. The entire known historic range is the Spring pool and the Spring run of approximately 152 m (500 ft) in length. The entire range is owned by the City of Anniston.

POPULATION LEVEL: Populations are estimated at 720 to 1,555 individuals in the Spring run and 7,609 to 8,126 individuals in the Spring pool.

HABITAT: Coldwater Spring has an average flow of32 million gallons a day with a fairly consistent temperature of 16 to 18 degrees centigrade (about 88 degrees Fahrenheit). The bottom is gravel and sand with largerocks where the Spring boils occur. Large mats of vegetation are present in the Spring pool and along the edges ofthe Spring run. The pool is formed by a low weir dam approximately 7 m (22 ft) length. The run is approximately 18 m (60 ft) wide and 152 m (500 ft) long. Substrate in the run is sand and gravel. Water depth in the run varies from 1 to several centimeters (inches) with very little pooling before the run joins Dry Creek.

LIFE HISTORY: Pygmy sculpin feedon small snails, microcrustaceans, and aquatic insect larvae. Sexual maturity is reached when individuals attain 2.54 cm (1 in) or more in length. Gravid females have been collected throughout the year, butspawning activity is most intense from April to August. Eggs are laid beneath cobble.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Contamination of the subsurface aquifer for Coldwater Spring threatens the pygmy sculpin. Water sampling on and adjacent to Anniston Army Depot indicates hexavalent chromium is discharged to Dry Creek and chlorinated hydrocarbons are in the groundwater at the Depot. Trichloroethylene occurs in strong concentrations (up to 120,000 parts per billion (ppb)) intest wells on the Depot and up to 3.4 ppb in Coldwater Spring. Shallow ground water inthe area ofthe Spring likely contributes to the recharge of the Jacksonville fault zone, which includes Coldwater Spring. Since the species is restricted to Coldwater Spring, it could be eliminated by any single adverse action.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Studies have been conducted to identify the recharge area of Coldwater Springs. The population is periodically monitored. Habitat needs are under investigation. An emergencyplan has been developed as a caution against a catastrophic pollution spill.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To protect and eventually delist the pygmy sculpin.

78 WATERCRESS DARTER

Etheostoma nuchale

FAMILY: Percidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OFINFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Rezister, 35 FR 16047, October 13, 1970

DESCRIPTION: The watercress darter is a small, robust species growing to a maximum size ofjust over 5 cm (2 in) in total length. Breeding males have red-orange and blue fins, and red-orange on the lower part ofthe body. The lateral line has 35 to 42 scales, is incomplete, and has 12 to 24 pored scales. The nape is naked.

HISTORIC RANGE AND CURRENT RANGE: Known naturally from three springs, Black Warrior River watershed, Jefferson County, Alabama; a new population hasbeen introduced into a fourth spring.

POPULATION LEVEL: Population levels in the naturally occurring populations appearto be healthy.

HABITAT: The deeper, slow-moving backwaters ofsprings that are choked with aquatic vegetation.

LIFE HISTORY: Watercress darters feed on aquatic insects and small crustaceans. Spawning occurs from March through July.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUSAS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: The limited distribution ofthe species, urbanization ofareas surrounding its habitat, and the potential for groundwater contamination are the primary threats to the species.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: A new population has been successfully introduced into previously unoccupied habitat in Tawpawingo Spring, Jefferson County, Alabama. The Service has purchased Thomas Spring and adjacent habitat. This area has been designated as the Watercress Darter National Wildlife Refuge.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: Reclassification to threatened status, and eventually delist the species.

79 BLACK CLUBSHELL (CURTUS’ PEARLY MUSSEL)

Pleurobema curtum

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Register FR 52 11162, April 7, 1987

DESCRIPTION: The black clubshell is subtriangular inshape, and grows to about 50 mm (2 in) in length. Shell color varies from green in young shells to a dark greenish-black in older shells. The nacre is bluish-white, iridescent, and thin posteriorly. The shell has near-terminal, prominent umbos, and is elongated posteriorly.

HISTORIC RANGE: Tombigbee River above Pickensville, Alabama and Mississippi.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: EastFork of the Tombigbee River, in the vicinity ofthe ItawambafMonroe County line, Mississippi.

POPULATION LEVEL: Population numbers are extremely low. Only a few fresh dead shells ofthe black clubshell have been recovered from the East Fork ofthe Tombigbee River sinceconstruction oftheTennessee- Tombigbee Waterway.

HABITAT: Stable sand/gravel runs and riffles.

LIFE HISTORY: Unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitatmodification is the primary cause ofthe decline of the black clubshell. This species cannot tolerate impoundment or channelization. Water diversion, sand and gravel mining within and adjacent to the river channel, agricultural runoff, and low population levels were also causes of concern.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughoutthe historic range of the black clubshell have been conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations. The State of Mississippi performs an annual assessment and survey ofhistorical and occupied habitats in the East Fork ofthe Tombigbee River.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: Recovery of the black clubshell to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The recovery objective is to prevent the extinction of this species by protecting its remaining habitat.

80 FLAT PIGTOE (MARSHALL’S PEARLY MUSSEL)

Pleurobema marshalli

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Register 52 FR 11162, April 7, 1987

DESCRIPTION: The flat pigtoe is rounded subovate, or obliquely elliptical in outline, growing to 60 mm (2.4 in) in length. Periostracum is brown to reddish-brown in coloration, and the nacre is white. Very low pustules or welts are often present on the postventral surface of the shell. Umbos are near-terminal, and the umbonal cavity is shallow.

HISTORIC RANGE: Tombigbee River between Columbus, Mississippi, and Epes, Alabama.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: The flat pigtoe has not been collected alive since completion of the Tennessee- Tombigbee Waterway. The only known locality within its’ historic range where adequate habitat and flowsmay still occur is below Gainesville Dam, Alabama.

POPULATION LEVEL: Recent searches of historic habitat have failed to locate the species.

HABITAT: Sand/gravel shoals and runs in the Tombigbee River.

LIFE HISTORY: Unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUSAS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitatmodification is the primary cause ofdecline ofthe flat pigtoe. This species can not tolerate impoundment. All known historic habitat for this species is affectedby impoundments for navigation.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveysofpotential habitat throughout thehistoric range ofthe flatpigtoe, and intensive searches ofthe Gainesville Bendway havebeen conducted by Federal and State biologists in efforts to locate extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: Recovery of the flat pigtoe to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely. The recovery objective is to preventthe extinction of this species by protecting potential habitat.

81 HEAVY PIGTOE (JUDGE TAIT’S MUSSEL)

Pleurobema taitianum

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Register 52 FR 11162, April 7, 1987

DESCRIPTION: The shell of the heavy pigtoe is obliquelytriangular in shape. Average shell size is about 50 mm (2 in) in length. Periostracum color is brown to brownish-black, and the nacre is pinkish. Umbos are located and directed anteriorly, and umbonal cavities are very shallow.

HISTORIC RANGE: Mainstem Tombigbee, Alabama, Cahaba, and Coosa Rivers, Alabama and Mississippi.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: East Forkof the Tombigbee, Buttahatchee Rivers, Mississippi; Alabama and Sipsey Rivers, Alabama.

POPULATION SIZE: A small population ofthe heavy pigtoe is known from the Alabama River near Selma, Alabama. The specieshas not been found alive at any other site since 1987.

HABITAT: Stable sand/gravel/cobble runs and riffles of small to large rivers.

LIFE HISTORY: Unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification for navigation is theprimary cause ofthe decline ofthe heavypigtoe. This species cannot tolerate impoundment. Agricultural runoff, sand and gravel mining within and adjacent to the riverchannel, and low population levels also threaten the species.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys of potential habitat throughoutthe historic range ofthe heavy pigtoe have been conducted by Federal, State and private biologists. The State of Mississippi performs an annual assessment and survey of historical and potential habitats in the Buttahatchee and East Fork ofthe Tombigbee Rivers. The State of Alabama conducts annual survey of mussel beds in the Alabama River.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: Recovery of the heavypigtoe to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The recovery objective is to prevent the extinction ofthis species by locating surviving populations and protecting its remaining habitat.

82 INFLATED HEELSPLITTER

Potamilus inflatus

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Theatened, Federal Rezister. 55 FR 39868 September 28, 1990

DESC’”PTION: The inflated heelsplitter has an oval, compressed tomoderately inflated, thin shell. The valves ma interiorly, the umbos are low, and there is a prominent posterior wing that may extendanterior to the bea?. ~ungindividuals. The shell is brown to black and may have green rays in young individuals. The umbonai cavity is very shallow and the nacre is pink to purple. Shell length reaches 140 mm (5.5 in) in adults.

HISTORIC RANGE: Amite and Tangipahoa Rivers, Louisiana; the Pearl River, Mississippi; and the Tombigbee, Black Warrior, Alabama, and Coosa Rivers, Alabama.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Amite River, Louisiana; Pearl River, Mississippi; Alabama, Tombigbee and Black Warrior rivers, Alabama.

POPULATION LEVEL: In the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway densities of inflated heelsplitters ranged from 0.0-1.73 per 100 square in (1076 square ft). Extensive surveys ofthe Alabama River have located only a single fresh dead shell ofthe species. During an intensive survey ofthe Amite River only 63 live and dead heelsplitters were found. Extensive surveys of the Pearl River have resulted inthe collection of only a few fresh dead shells.

HABITAT: The preferred habitat ofthis species is soft, stable substrates in slow to moderate currents. It has been found in sand, mud, silt and sandy-gravel, but not in large gravel orarmored gravel. It is usually collected on the protected side ofbars and may occur in depths over 6 in (20 ft).

LIFE HISTORY: Shells ofthis species exhibit sexual dimorphism, with female shells being considerably smaller than males. There are also differences in nacre color and growth rates between sexes. Glochidial release is believed to occur in July, followed by spawning inAugust. The host fish has been identified as freshwater drum.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Historic habitat has been impacted by channel modification for navigation and flood control, impoundment, pollution, navigation dredging, and gravel dredging and mining.

MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION EFFORTS: The New Orleans District, Corps ofEngineers has issued cease and desist ordersto illegal mining operations in the channel ofthe Amite River, and has conducted surveys for the species inthe Pearl River. The Mobile District, Corps of Engineers has conducted studies on the biology and ecology ofthe species, as well as surveys and relocation efforts prior to channel maintenance dredging in the Tombigbee and Black Warrior Rivers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicehas conducted studies on life history and genetics.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To delist the inflated heelsplitter.

83 SOUTHERN COMBSHELL (PENITENT MUSSEL)

Epioblasmapenita

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Register, 52 FR 11162, April 7, 1987

DESCRIPTION: The southern combshell is squarish in outline and grows to about 55 mm (2.2 in) in length. The periostracum is yellowish, greenish-yellow, or tawny in color, sometimes with darker dots. The posterior ofthe shell is swollen and radially sculptured in females, angulated and flattened in males. The ligament (shell attachment) is very short, and the nacre is white with iridescence in the umbonal cavity.

HISTORIC RANGE: AlabamaRiver, Alabama; Tombigbee River and tributaries, Mississippi and Alabama; Black Warrior Riverbelow the FallLine, Alabama; Cahaba River, Alabama; Coosa River, Alabama. KNOWN POPULATIONS: East Forkofthe Tombigbee and Buttahatchee Rivers, Tombigbee River drainage, Mississippi.

POPULATION LEVEL: Intensive surveys have failed to locate the southern combshell inthe East Fork ofthe Tombigbee River. Southern combshells continue to be rarely found inthe Buttahatchee River.

HABITAT: Sand/gravel shoals and runs in small to largerivers.

LIFE HISTORY: Unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitat modification in the form ofchannelization and impoundment, sedimentation, and waterquality degradationare the primary causes ofdecline ofthe southern combshell. This species can not tolerate impoundments. Surviving populations are threatened by channel degradation initiated by sand and gravel mining within and adjacentto river channels and agricultural runoff.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys ofpotential habitat throughout the historic rangeofthe southern combshell have been conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations. The State of Mississippi performs an annual assessment and survey of historical and occupied habitats inthe Buttahatchee and East Fork ofthe Tombigbee Rivers.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: Recovery of the southern combshell to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The recovery objective is to prevent the extinction ofthis species by protecting its remaining habitat.

84 STIRRUPSHELL

Quadrula stapes

FAMILY: Unionidae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Register 52 FR 11162, April 7, 1987

DESCRIPTION: The stirrupshell grows to about 55 mm (2.2 in) in length, and is irregularly squarish in outline. The shell has a sharp posterior ridge ending abruptly. The posterior surface is tubercled, and yellowish-green to brown coloration. The nacre is white, iridescent posteriorly.

HISTORIC RANGE: Tombigbee, Black Warrior and Alabama Rivers, Alabama, Mississippi.

KNOWN POPULATIONS: Lower Sipsey River, Tombigbee River drainage, Alabama.

POPULATION LEVEL: A fresh dead shell was last collected from the lower Sipsey River in 1986.

HABITAT: Stable sand/gravel/cobble runs.

LIFE HISTORY: Unknown.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITEDIN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: Habitatmodification is the majorcause ofdecline ofthe stirrupshell. This species can not tolerate impoundments. Most ofthe species habitat has been impounded by the construction of locks and dams. The lower Sipsey River is vulnerable to nonpoint source pollution.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: Surveys ofpotential habitat throughoutthe historic range ofthe stirrupshell have been conducted by Federal, State and private biologists in efforts to locate extant populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: Recovery of the stirrupshell to the point of downlisting to threatened is unlikely in the near future. The recovery objective is to prevent the extinction ofthis species by protecting its remaining habitat.

85 HARPERELLA

Ptilimnium nodosum

FAMILY: Apiaceae

STATUSAND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Endangered, Federal Register 53 FR 37982 September 28, 1988

DESCRIPTION: This annual herb grows to a height of 0.15 to 1.0 m (6 to 36 in). The leaves are reduced to hollow, quill-like structures. The small, white flowers occur in heads, or umbels, not unlike those of Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota). Flowers have five regular parts and are bisexual or unisexual, each umbel containing both perfect (male and female flowers) and male florets. Seeds are elliptical and laterally compressed, measuring 1.5 to 2.0 mm (0.06-0.08 in) in length. In pond habitats, flowering begins in May, while riverine populations flower much later, beginning in late June or July and continuinguntil frost.

RANGE AND POPULATION LEVEL: Harperella is known from 12 populations inAlabama, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Maryland. Only two populations are known to occur in Alabama, Little River and its tributary Town Creek, Dekalb County, Alabama. Although the numberof populations is limited, this plant is arelatively prolific annual, and large numbers mayoccur within each population, especially along rivers.

HABITAT: Harperella typically occurs in two habitat types: (1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift- flowing stream sections; and (2)edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: This plant tolerates and may actually require a very specific and unusual water regime, includingmoderately intensive spring floods, which may reduce or eliminate competing vegetation. Harperella is readily eliminated from its habitat by alterationsof the water regime whichresult from impoundments, water withdrawal, and drainage or deepening of ponds. Other factors such as siltation, pollution, and shoreline development also threaten harperella populations. Overhalf the historically known populations have been eliminated by such factors.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: The Little River Canyon National Preserve in Alabama contains a population ofharperella. Additional plants on lands managed by DeSoto State Park receive protection from adverse modification of habitat. A major road has been constructed close to the Maryland population, but intensive silt and erosion control methods havebeen used. A study of this population is being conducted by the Maryland Heritage Program, to determine the species’ long-term distribution and response to such factors as water depth and quality, substrate, siltation, etc. Heritage programs, especially in West Virginiaand South Carolina, have been active in obtaining landowner cooperation and acquiringhabitat.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To reclassify Harperella to threatened status, and eventually delist the species.

86 KRAL’S WATER-PLANTAIN

Sagittaria secundWolia

FAMILY: Alismataceae

STATUS AND SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Threatened, Federal Register 55 FR 13911, April 13, 1990

DESCRIPTION: An aquatic, perennial herb, Kral’s water plantain arises from a stiff, elongated rhizome (root-like plant stem) up to 100 mm (4 in) in length. This plant can float above or below the water. The shape of its leaves depends uponthe velocity and depth of its habitat. In swift shallows, the leaves are linear, rigid, and sickle-shaped, 50-80 mm (2-3 in) and 2-5 mm m ‘9-0.20 in) wide. In quiet deep waters, the leaves are more quill-like, being longer (100-300 mm (4 to 12 it ~arin shape, and tapering. Separate male and female flowers are produced on a stalk, 100-500 mm (4-20 in) The petals are inconspicuous in the female flowers; however, in the male flowers, they are white and 10-! (0.4 to 0.6 in). The fruit consists of a clusterof achenes approximately2 mm (0.08 in) in length. Although in :nt, flowering occurs from May into July, and intermittently into the fall.

RANGE AND POPULATION LEVEL: Little River Drainage System on LookoutMountain in Northeast Alabama andNorthwest Georgia. Twelve populations of this plant are scattered over approximately 40 river km (25 rivermi). Eight of thesepopulations are in poolsor rivers with partial canopy coverage, and these all support only 5 to 40 plants. The other four populations, located on shallow shoals, had 75 to several hundred plants each. Kral’s Water Plantain is also known from Town Creek inthe Sand Mountain area ofNortheast Alabama, and Sipsey Fork of the Black Warrior River in Bankhead National Forest, Alabama.

HABITAT: Kral’s water plantain typically occurs on frequently exposed shoals or rooted among loose boulders in quiet pools up to 1 m (3.2 fi) in depth. The stream bottoms are typically narrow and bounded by steep slopes.

REASONS FOR CURRENT STATUS AS CITED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER: A major threat to this species is the elimination or adverse modification of its already limited habitat. Clearing ofthe adjacent riverbanks for development, surface mining, or agricultural purposes poses a significant threat for this species by contributing to water quality degradation and increased stream turbidity and siltation from erosion. The Little River population may be adversely affected by eutrophication from garbage dumping and leaking sewage systems. A small number of sites are used as fords and are often a center for recreational activity, subjecting them to damage by off-road vehicle traffic.

CONSERVATION MEASURES: When listed, approximately 40 percent of Kral’swater plantain habitat in Little River was owned by the Alabama Power Company, and 20 percent by the Alabama Departmentof Conservation and Natural Resources (DeSoto State Park). Since listing, the Little River Canyon National Preserve has been established that includes most ofthis habitat. The remainder is in private ownership within Alabama and Georgia. Alabama’s DeSoto State Park personnel are working withthe Dekalb County office ofthe Alabama Department of Health~tosample water at various points within the Little River watershed to document any pollution that may exist and, if found, to determine the cause and take corrective action. The waters of the Little River have been designated as Outstanding Natural Resource Waters. The Georgia Department ofNatural Resources is aware of this species in Georgia and is monitoring it through the Department’s Freshwater Wetlands and Heritage Inventory program. Surveys for additional populations are ongoing in Alabama and Georgia.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: To delist Kral’s water-plantain.

87 APPENDIX C

CANDIDATE SPECIES AND SPECIES OF CONCERN Aquatic species that are candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act, or that may become eligible for listing in the near future.

CANDIDATE SPECIES

Amphibian Black Warrior waterdog Necturus alabamensis Mussel Alabama pearlshellmussel Margarit~fera marrianae Alabama clubshell Pleurobematroshelianum Georgia pigtoe Pleurobemahanleyanum Painted clubshell Pleurobemachattanoogaense Snail Georgia rocksnail Leptoxis downei

SPECIES OF CONCERN

Taxa for which information now in the possession of the Service indicates that proposing to list as endangered or threatened is possibly appropriate, butfor which conclusivedata on biological vulnerability and threat are not currently available to support proposed rules.

Reptiles Alligator snapping turtle Macroclemys temminckii Gulf salt marsh snake Nerodia clark,i Mississippi diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapinpileata

Fish Alabama channel darter Percina sp. Alabama shad Alosa alabamae Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus Coldwater darter Etheostoma ditrema Gulf striped bass Morone saxatilis (Mobile Basin population is currently maintained by hatchery stocking) Paddlefish Polyodon spathula Trispotdarter Etheostoma trisella Walleye Stizostedium vitreum Warrior bridled darter Percina sp. spp.

Mussels Tennessee heelsplitter Lasmigona hoistonia

Snails Black mudalia Leptoxis melanoides Caper elimia Elimia olivula Coosa pebblesnail Somatogyrus coosaensis Domed ancylid Rhodacmea elatior Dwarf pebblesnail Somatogyrus nanus Fluted pebblesnail Somatogyrus hendersoni Gladiator elimia Elimia hydei Granite pebblesnail Somatogyrus hinkleyi Hidden pebblesnail Somatogyrus decipiens

88 Knotty pebblesnail Somatogyrus constrictus Moon pebblesnail Somatogyrus obtusus Pygmy pebblesnail Somatogyrus pygmaeus Puzzle elimia Elimiavarians Ringed homsnail Pleurocera annul~fera Rough homsnail Pleuroceraforemani Sculpin snail Stiobia nana Spindle elimia Elimia capillaris Spotted rocksnail Leptoxispicta Stocky pebblesnail Somatogyrus crassus Tallapoosa pebblesnail Somatogyruspitsbryanus Upland hornsnail Pleurocerashowalteri Wicker ancylid Rhodacmeafilosa [NoCommon Name] Antrorbis breweri

Insects Alleghany snaketail dragonfly Ophiogomphus incurvatu’ rileghaniensis American sandburrowing mayfly Dolania americana Caddisfly Agarodes alabamensis Caddisfly Hydroptila lagoi Caddisfly Ochrotrichia elongiralla Caddisfly Polycentropusharrisi Caddisfly Stactiobiella cahaba Caddisfly Theliopsyche tallapoosa Cahaba saddle-case caddisfly Protoptila cahabensis Cahaba sandfiltering mayfly Homoeoneuria cahabensis Cheaha beloneurian stonefly Beloneuriajamesae Cherokee clubtail dragonfly Gomphurus consanguis Cobblestone tiger beetle Cicindela margini~ennis Folkert’s hydroporns diving beetle Hydroporusfolkerrsi Red Hills unique whirligig beetle Spanglerogyrus albiventris Septima’s clubtail dragonfly Gomphurus septima Starks false water penny beetle Alabameubria starki

Crayfish Crayfish Cambarus englishi Crayfish Cambarus miltus Crayfish Procambarus lagniappe Spinytail crayfish Procambarusfitzpatricki

Plant Cahaba lily Hymenocalliscoronaria

89 APPENDIX D

EXTIRPATED AND EXTINCT AQUATIC SPECIES

EXTIRPATED

Deertoe mussel Truncila truncata Lake sturgeon Acipenserfulvescens

EXTINCT SPECIES

Taxa endemic to the Mobile River basin that havenot beenreported for 20 or more years.

Mussels Alabama pigtoe Pleurobemajohannis Coosa elktoe Alasmidonta maccordi Coosa pigtoe Pleurobema murrayense Hazel pigtoe Pleurobema avellanum Highnut Pleurobema altum Longnut Pleurobema nucleopsis Tombigbee moccasinshell Medionidus macglameriae True pigtoe Pleurobemaverum Warriorpigtoe Pleurobema rubellum Yellow pigtoe Pleurobemaflavidulum [NoCommon Name] Pleurobema aidrichianum [NoCommon Name] Pleurobema hagleri [NoCommon Name] Pleurobema hartmanianum

Snails Agate rocksnail Leptoxis clipeata Bigmouth rocksnail Leptoxis occultata Cahaba pebblesnail Clappia cahabensis Closed elimia Elimia clausa Cobble elimia Elimia vanuxemiana Constricted elimia Elimia impressa Coosa rocksnail Leptoxisshowalteri Excised slitshell Gyrotoma excisa Fusiform elimia E1imiafus~formis Hearty elimia Elimialonesi High-spired elimia Elimia hartmaniana Interrupted rocksnail Leptoxisforemani Lirate rocksnail Leptoxis lirata Maiden rocksnail Leptoxisformosa Oblong rocksnail Leptoxis compacta Pagoda slitshell Gyrotoma pagoda Pupa elimia Elimiapupaeformis Pygmy elimia Elimiapygmaea

90 Pyramid slitshell Gyrotoma pyramidata Ribbed elimia Elimia laeta Ribbed slitshell Gyrotomapumila Rotund rocksnail Leptoxis ligata Rough-lined elimia Elimia pilsbryi Round slitshell Gyrotoma wa/ken Shoal sprite Amphigyra alabamensis Short-spire elimia Elimia brevis Striate slitshell Gyrotoma lewisi Striped rocksnail Leptoxis vittata Umbilicate pebblesnail Clappia umbilicata [NoCommon Name] Elimia gibbera [NoCommon Name] Elimia lachryma [NoCommonName] Elimia macglameniana [NoCommonName] Leptoxis torrefacta [NoCommon Name] Neoplanorbis carinatus [NoCommon Name] Neoplanorbis smithi [NoCommonName] Neoplanorbis tantillus [No Common Name] Neoplanorbis umbilicatus

91 APPENDIX E

REFERENCES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON LISTED SPECIES IN THE MOBILE RIVER BASIN

FLATTENED MUSK TURTLE Close, D.K. 1982. The Reproductive Cycle ofSternotherus minor depressus. M. S. Thesis, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. 101 pp.

Dodd, C.K. Jr. 1988. Disease and Population Declines In The Flattened Musk Turtle, Sternotherus depressus. M.S. Thesis, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. 101 pp.

Dodd, C. K. Jr., K.M. Enge, and J.N. Stuart. 1986. The Effects of Mining Siltation on the Distribution and Abundance of the FlattenedMusk Turtle, Sternotherus depressus, in Northern Alabama. Unpublished Report to Fulfill Interagency Agreement No. JS 140132 between OSM and USEWS. 82 pp. + Appendices, Figures, and Tables.

Ernst, C.H., J.E. Lovich, and R.W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles of the United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xxxviii + 578 pp.

Ernst, C.H., W.A. Cox, and K.R. Marion. 1983. The Distribution and Status ofthe Flattened Musk Turtle in the Warrior Basin of Alabama. Unpublished report. Alabama Coal Association. iii+ 136 pp.

Estridge, R.E. 1970. The Taxonomic Status of Sternotherus depressus (Testudinata, Kinosternidae) with Observations on its Ecology. M.S. Thesis, Aubum University, Aubum, Alabama. 49 pp.

Mount, R.H. 1981. The Status ofthe Flattened Musk Turtle, Sternotherus minordepressus, Tinkle and Webb. Unpublished Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. v + 119 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Black Warrior River Basin Cooperative Study. 217 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Threatened Status for the Flattened Musk Turtle. Federal fl~gIstei 52:22417-22430.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Flattened Musk Turtle (Sternotherus depressus) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 15 pp.

ALABAMA REDBELLY TURTLE Dobie, J.L. 1985. Distribution and Status ofthe Alabama Red-bellied Turtle. Pseudemys alabamensis Baur. Report on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract No. 14-16-0009-1546.

Ernst, C.H., J.E. Lovich, and R.W. Barbour. 1994. Turtles ofthe United States and Canada. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. xxxviii + 578 pp.

McCoy, C.J., and R.C. Vogt. 1979. Distribution and Population Status of the Alabama Red-bellied turtle, Pseudemys alabamensis. Report on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract No. 14-16-0004-79-039.

Meany, D.B. 1979. Nesting Habits of the Alabama Red-bellied Turtle, Pseudemys alabamensis. I. Alabama Acad. Sci. 50:113.

92 Mount, R.H. 1975. The Reptiles ~nd Amphibians ofAlabama. Auburn Univ. Agri. Exp. Sta., Auburn, Alabama. 347 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of Endangered Status for the Alabama Red-bellied Turtle. Federal Register 52 :22939-22943.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Alabama red-bellied turtle recovery plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 17 pp.

BLUE SHINER Freeman, B. J. 1983. Final report on the status of Etheostoma tinsel/a, the trispot darter, andPercina antesella, the amber darter, in the upper Coosa River System in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee. A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 21 pp. + appendices.

Gilbert, C. R., H. 1. Boschung, and G. H. Burgess. 1979. Notropis caeruleus (Jordan), Blue Shiner. Pg. 244 In: D. S. Lee, C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer, Jr. (eds.). Atlas of North American Fresh Water Fishes. NC State Museum ofNat. Hist., Raleigh, North Carolina.

Pierson, J.M., andR.S. Krotzer. 1987. The distribution, relative abundance, and life history ofthe blue shiner, Notropis caeruleus (Jordan). Prepared for the Alabama NongameWildlife Coordinator. 105 pp.

Ramsey, J.S. 1976. Freshwater Fishes. Pp. 53-65 In: H. Boschung (ed.). Endangered andthreatened plants and animal ~‘fAlabama. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. ofAlabama., Alabama.

Ramsey, J.S. 1986. Blue shiner, Notropis caeruleus. Pp. 12-13 In: R.H. Mount(ed.). Vertebrate animals of Alabamain need of special attention. Alabama Agr. Expt. Sta., Auburn Univ., Alabama.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; threatened status for two fish, the goldline darter (Percina aurohneata) and blue shiner (Cyprinella caeru/ea). Federal Register 57:14786-14790.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery plan for the blue shiner (Cyprinella caeru/ea). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 20 pp.

CAHABA SHINER Gilbert, C.R., and G.H. Burgess. 1980. Notropis vo/ucel/us (Cope), mimic shiner. Pg. 322. In: D.S. Lee, C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, RE. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. (eds.). Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Mus. Nat. Hist., Raleigh, North Carolina.

Howell, W.M., R.A. Stiles, and J.S. Brown. 1982. Status Survey of the Cahaba Shiner (Notropis sp.) and Goldline Darter (Percina aurolineata) inthe Cahaba River from Trussville to Booth Ford, Alabama. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract Report. 148 pp.

Mayden, R.L., and B.R. Kuhajda. 1989. Systematics ofNotropis cahabae, a New Cyprinid Fish Endemic to the CahabaRiver of the Mobile Basin. Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. No. 9. 16 pp.

Pierson, J.M., and R.S. Krotzer. 1987. The Distribution, Relative Abundance, and Life History of the Blue Shiner, Notropis caeru/eus (Jordan). Prepared for the Alabama Nongame Wildlife Coordinator. 105 pp.

Pierson, J.M., W.M. Howell, R.A. Stiles, M.F. Mettee, P.E. O’Neal, R.D. Suttkus, and J.S. Ramsey. 1989. Fishes of the Cahaba River System in Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama. 183 pp.

93 Pulliam, JohnJ. III. 1984. Status Review ofthe Cahaba Shiner for U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 15 pp.

Ramsey, J.S. 1978. Unusual fishes and their distribution in the CahabaRiver, Alabama. Pp. 22-30. In: J. Randolph (ed.). Citizens’ study fora national wild and scenic Cahaba River. AlabamaConservancy, Binningham, Alabama. Ramsey, J.S. 1982. Habitat and distribution ofthe Cahaba Shiner andappraisal of methods for its capture. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 44 pp. and appendices.

Stiles, R.A. 1990. A preliminary report on the current status of the goldline darter, Percina auro/ineota, and the Cahaba shiner,Notropis cahabae, in the Little Cahaba and Cahaba Rivers of Alabama. A reportto the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 28 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered andThreatened Wildlife and Plants: Endangered Status Determined forthe Fish Cahaba Shiner (Notropis cahabae). Federal ~ 55:42961-42966.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Cahaba shiner(Notropis cahabae) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 15 pp.

CHEROKEE AND ETOWAH DARTERS Bailey, R.M., and D.A. Etnier. 1988. Comments on the subgenera of darters (Percidae) with description of two new species from the southeasternUnited States. Misc. Pub. Univ. Michigan Mus. Zool. 175:1-48.

Bauer, B.H., D.A. Etnier, and N.M. Burkhead. 1995. Etheostoma (Ulocentra) sp. (Osteichthyes: Percidae), a new darter from the Etowah River system in Georgia. Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. 45 pp.

Burkhead, N.M. 1993. Status survey fortwo freshwater fishes, the Cherokee and Etowah darters (Pisces, Percidae), endemic to the Etowab River system of north Georgia. Final Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Wood, R.M., and R.L. Mayden. 1993. Systematics of the Etheostoma jordani species group (Teleostei: Percidae), with descriptions of three new species. Bull. Alabama Mus. Nat. Hist. 16:29-44.

CONASAUGA LOGPERCH AND AMBER DARTER Freeman, B.J. 1983. Final Report on the Status of Etheostoma tinsel/a, the TrispotDarter, and Percina antesella, the Amber Darter, in the Upper Coosa River System inAlabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contract No. 14-16-0004-048. 112 pp.

Starnes, W.C. and D.A. Etnier. 1980. Fishes. Pp. Bl-B123. In: D.C. Eagarand R.M. Hatcher (eds.). Tennessee’s Rare Wildlife Volume I: The Vertebrates. Tennessee Heritage Program, Tennessee.

Thompson, B.A. 1985. Percinajenkinsi, A New Species of Logperch (Pisces, Percidae) from the Conasauga River inTennessee and Georgia. Occasional Papers ofthe Museum of Zoology, Louisiana State University, No.61. 23 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Conasauga Logperch andAmber Darter Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.

94 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Determination of endangered status and critical habitat for the amber darter and Conasauga logperch. Federal Register 50:31597- 3 1604.

GOLDLINE DARTER Freeman, B.J. 1998. Survey of threatened and endangered fishes in the Oostanaula, Coosawattee, and Etowah Rivers. Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Final report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 17 pp.

Howell, W. M., R. A. Stiles, and J. S. Brown. 1982. Status survey of the Cahaba shiner (Notropis sp.) and goldline darter (Percinaauro/ineata) inthe Cahaba River from Trussville to Booth Ford, Alabama. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracted report. 148 pp.

Kuehne, R. A., and R. W. Barbour. 1983. The American Darters. University Press Kentucky. pp. 27-28.

Ramsey, J. 5. 1982. Habitat and distribution of the Cahaba shiner and appraisal of methods forits capture. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 44pp + appendices.

Stiles, R. A. 1978. A report on the status ofthe goldline darter, Percina auro/ineata, and the Cahabashiner, Notropis sp., in the Cahaba River system of Alabama. CahabaRiver Study Project. 6 pp. + maps and appendices.

Stiles, R. A. 1990. A preliminary report on the current status ofthe goldline darter, Percina aurolinneata, and the Cahaba shiner, Notropis cahabae, in the Little Cahaba and Cahaba Rivers ofAlabama. A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 28 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatenedwildlife and plants; threatened status for two fish, the goldline darter (Percinna auro/ineata) and blue shiner (Cyprinne/la caerulea). Federal Register 57:14786-14790.

GULF STURGEON U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Endangered and threatenedwildlife and plants; determination of threatened status forthe Gulf sturgeon. Federal Register 56:49653-49658.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp.

PYGMY SCULPIN Catchings, E. D., and K. B. Floyd. 1991. Monitoring the pygmy sculpin in Calhoun County, Alabama. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 8 pp.

Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1986. Off-post investigation of Anniston Army Depot, summary of preliminary results. Reportto U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency. 35 pp. & appendices.

Kangas, M. J. 1987. Draft Anniston Army Depot endangerment assessment. Contract report toAnniston Army Depot. 66 pp & appendix.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: pygmy sculpin determined to be threatened. Federal Register 54:39846-39850.

95 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Pygmy Sculpin (Cottus pygmaeus) Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 13 pp.

Williams, J. D. 1968. A new species of sculpin, Cottuspygmaeus, from a spring in the Alabama River basin. Copeia 1968:334-342.

WATERCRESS DARTER Moss, J.L. 1995. Watercress darter population monitoring, October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995. Annual performance report, endangered species program, grant no. E- 1, segment 5. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Montgomery, Alabama. 13 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Watercress Darter (Etheostoma nuchale) Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 16 pp.

ALABAMA STURGEON Biggins, R. 1994. Federal activities that may affect the Alabama sturgeon and anticipated section 7 consultations of these activities. Jointly prepared by the Mobile District Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 18, 1994.

Burke, J.S., and J.S. Ramsey. 1995. Present and recent historic habitat of the Alabama sturgeon Scaphirhynchus suttkusi (Williams and Clemmer), in the Mobile Basin. Bull. Ala. Mus. Nat. Hist. 17:17-24.

Campton, D.E., A.L. Bass, F.A. Chapman, and B.W. Bowen. In press. Genetic distinction of pallid, shovelnose, and Alabama sturgeon: emerging species and the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Genetics.

Mayden, R.L. and B.R. Kuhajda. 1996. Systematics, taxonomy, and conservation statusof the endangered Alabama sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Williams and Clemmer (Actinopterygii, Acipenseridae). Copeia 1996:241-273.

Mettee, M.F., P.E. O’Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxinoor House, Inc., Birmingham, Alabama.

ENDEMIC MOBILE RIVER DRAINAGE MUSSELS Baldwin, C.S. 1973. Changes in the freshwater mussel fauna in the Cahaba River over the past forty years. M.S. Thesis. Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Alabama. 45 pp.

Conrad, T.A. 1834. New freshwater shells ofthe United States, with colored illustrations, and a monograph of the Genus Anculotus of Say: also a synopsis of the American naiades. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, pp. 32, 38, 39, 43, 44, 47.

Conrad, T.A. 1838. Monography ofthe family Unionidae, or naiades of Lamarck, (fresh water bivalve shells) of North America. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, No. 11 (back cover).

Dodd, C.K. Jr., K.M. Enge and J.N. Stuart. 1986. The effects of mining siltation on the distribution and abundance ofthe flattened muskturtle, Sternotherus depressus, in northern Alabama. Denver Wildlife Research Center, Gainesville, Florida, pp 40-4 1, Appendix 5.

Haag, W.R., R.S. Butler, and P.D. Hartfield. 1995. An extraordinary reproductive strategy in freshwater bivalves: prey mimicry to facilitate larval dispersal. Freshwater Biology 34:471-476.

96 Haag, W. R., and M.L. Warren, Jr. 1997. Fish hosts and reproductive aspects of six freshwater mussel species from the Mobile Basin, USA. Journal ofthe North American Benthological Society 16:576-585.

Hartfield, P. 1991. Statussurvey for mussels in the tributaries ofthe Black WarriorRiver. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 7 pp.

Hartfield, P. and R. Jones. 1989. The status ofEpiob/asmapenita, Pleurobema curtum, and P. taitianum in the

East Fork Tombigbee River - 1988. Mississippi Mus. Nat. Sci. Tech. Rpt. No. 8:44 pp.

Hartfield, P. and R. Jones. 1990. Population status ofendangered mussels in the Buttahatchee River, Mississippi

and Alabama - Segment 1, 1989. Mississippi Mus. Nat. Sci. Tech. Rpt. No. 9. 35 pp.

Hartfield P. and E. Hartfield. 1996. Observations on the conglutinates of Ptychobranchus greeni (Conrad, 1834) (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoidea). American Midland Naturalist 135:370-375.

Hartfleld, P. and R. Butler. 1997. Observations on the release of superconglutinates by Lampsi/isperova/is (Conrad 1834). Pp. 11-14. In: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.). Conservation andmanagement of freshwater mussels II: initiatives for the future. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

Hurd, J.C. 1974. Systematics and zoogeography of the unionacean mollusks ofthe Coosa River drainage of Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee. Ph.D. Dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 240 pp.

Irwin, E., G. Kowalski, andD. Buckmeir. 1998. Distribution of endemic andthreatened aquatic fauna in the upper Tallapoosa River. Alabama Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Auburn, Alabama. 38 pp.

Jenkinson, J.J. 1973. Distribution andzoogeography ofthe Unionidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in four creek systems in east-central Alabama. M.S. Thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 16 pp.

Johnson, R.I. 1978. Systematics and zoogeography of Plagiola (=Dysnomia=Epiob/asma), an almost extinct genus of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) from middle North America. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 148:254-257.

Jones, R.L., C.L. Knight, and T.C. Majure. 1996. Endangered mussels of Tombigbee River tributaries: the Noxubee River. Museum Technical Report No. 39. Mississippi Museum of Natural Science, Jackson, Mississippi. 10 pp.

Lea, Isaac. 1831. Observations on the naiades; and descriptions ofnew species ofthat and other families. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. 4:63-121.

Lea, Isaac. 1841. Continuation of paper on freshwater and land shells. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 2:3 1.

Lea, Isaac. 1857. Descriptions of thirteen new species ofuniones, from Georgia. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 9:3 1- 32.

Lea, Isaac. 1860. Descriptions of six new species of Unionidae from Alabama. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 12:307.

McGregor, 5. 1992. A mussel survey of the streams draining Bankhead National Forest and the Oakmulgee Division of Talladega National Forest, Alabama 1992. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 29 pp.

97 McGregor, S.W., T.E. Shepard, T.D. Richardson, and J.F. Fitzpatrick, Jr. 1996. A survey of the primary tributaries of the Alabama and lower Tombigbee Rivers for listed and candidate speciesof freshwater mussels, snails and crayfish, 1994-1996. Geological Survey of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 34 pp.

Mott, S. and P. Hartfield. 1994. Status review summary of the Alabama pearlshell Margaritfera marrianae. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 6 pp.

Pierson, J.M. 1991. Status survey of the southern clubshell, Pleurobema decisum (Lea, 1831). Mississippi Mus. Nat. Sci. Tech. Rpt. Jackson, Mississippi. 50 pp.

Stansbery, D.H. 1983a. The status ofEpiob/asmapenita (Conrad 1834) (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida). Office of End. Sp., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 4 pp.

Stansbery, D.H. 1983b. The status ofLampsi/isperova/is (Conrad 1834) (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida). Office ofEnd. Sp., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 6 pp.

Turgeon, D.D., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, W.K. Emerson, W.G. Lyons, W.L. Pratt, C.F.E. Roper, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, and J.D. Williams. 1988. A list of common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. Am. Fish. Soc. Special Publication 16:28-34, 156.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. A preimpoundment study ofmacrobenthos on the river section of the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. First Supplemental Environmental Report. Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama and Mississippi. Volume IX, Appendix F. P. 111-72.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Alabama water resources development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. SouthAtlantic Division, Atlanta, Georgia. 53 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1988. Final report, Tombigbee River (East Fork) study. Mobile, Alabama. Pp. 43, 47.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1990. Interim Report: Tombigbee River Basin joint study, Alabama and Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama. Pp. 158, 160-162.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status Marshall’s mussel (Pleurobema marsha//i), Curtus’ mussel(Pleurobema curium), Judge Tait’s mussel (Pleurobema taitianum), the stirrupshell, (Quadrula stapes), and the penitent mussel (Epiob/asma penita). Federal Register 52:11162-11169.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Five Tombigbee River Mussels Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 18 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: endangered status for eight freshwater mussels and threatened status for threefreshwater mussels inthe Mobile River Drainage. Federal Register 58:14330-14340. van der Schalie, H. 1938. The naiades (fresh-water mussels) of the CahabaRiver in northern Alabama. 0cc. Papers Mus. Zool., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 29 pp.

98 van der Schalie, H. 1981. Mollusks in the Alabama River drainage, past and present. Sterkiana No. 71:24-40.

Williams, J. and M. Hughes. 1998. Freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of selected reaches of the main channel rivers in the Coosa Drainage of Georgia. Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida. Final reportto the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 13 pp.

INFLATED HEELSPLITTER Brown, K.M., and J.P. Curole. 1996. Longitudinal survey ofthe unionidmussels of the Amite River, from the Mississippi State line to Port Vincent, Louisiana, with special emphasis on Potami/us inflatus. Reportto Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 36 pp.

Frierson, L.S. 1911. A comparison ofthe Unionidae of the Pearl and Sabine Rivers. Nautilus 24:134-136.

George, S.G., D.D. Dickerson, and K.J. Reine. 1996. Rediscovery of the inflated heelsplitter mussel, Potami/us inflatus, from the Pearl River drainage. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 11:245-246.

Hartfield, P. 1988. Status survey forthe Alabama heelsplitter mussel, Potami/us inflatus (Lea, 1831). A report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 27 pp. + appendix.

Hartfield, P. 1989. Mussel survey ofthe Amite River, Louisiana. A reportto Espy Huston and Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas. 16 pp.

Miller, A.C., D. Armistead and B.S. Payne. 1995. Biology and ecology of the threatened heelsplittermussel, Potami/us inflatus, in the Black Warrior-Tombigbee Waterway, Alabama. Technical Report, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Stem, E.M. 1976. The freshwater mussels (Unionidae) ofthe Lake Maurepas-Pontchartrain-Borgne drainage system, Louisiana and Mississippi. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 206 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Determination ofthreatened status for the inflated heelsplitter, Potami/us inflatus. Federal Register 55:39868-39872.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Inflated Heelsplitter, (Potami/us inflatus) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Jackson, Mississippi. 15 pp.

TULOTOMA SNAIL Burch, J.B. 1982. Freshwater snails(Mollusca: Gastropoda) ofNorth America. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. pp. 3, 16, 194.

Christman, S.P., F.G. Thompson, and E.L. Raiser. 1995. Tulotoma magn~fica (Conrad)(Gastropoda: Viviparidae) status and biology in the CoosaRiver below Jordan Dam, Alabama. Final Project Report. Alabama Power Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 63 pp.

Clench, W.J. 1962. A catalogue ofthe Viviparidae ofNorth America with notes on the distribution of Viviparus georgianus Lea. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, Mus. Comp. Zoo. 2:271-273.

Conrad, T.A. 1834. New fresh water shells of the United States, with lithographic illustrations, and a monograph of the genus Ancu/otus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. J. Dobson, Philadelphia. pp. 48-49.

99 Devries, D.R. 1994. The ecology and current status of the endangered tulotoma snail. Final Report to Alabama

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama. 46 pp.

Goodrich, C. 1944. Certain operculates ofthe Coosa River. Nautilus 58:1-4.

Haldeman, S.S. 1840. Supplement to number one of “A monograph of the Limniades, or freshwater univalve shells

of North America.” J. Dobson, Philadelphia. pp 1-3. Hershler R. 1989. Status survey of Tulotoma magn~fica (Conrad). Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 20 pp.

Patterson, C.M. 1965. The chromosomes of Tulotoma angu/ata (Streptoneura: Viviparidae). Malacologia 2:259- 265.

Stein, C.B. 1976. Gastropods. Pp. 21-41. In: H. Boschung (ed.). Endangered andthreatened plants and animals of Alabama. Bulletin Alabama Museum Natural History No. 2.

AQUATIC SNAILS Bogan, A.E. 1992. Endemic aquatic gastropods ofthe Mobile Bay drainage of Alabama. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi. 22 pp.

Bogan, A.E. andJ.M. Pierson. 1993a. Survey ofthe aquatic gastropods ofthe Coosa River Basin, Alabama: 1992. Alabama Natural Heritage Program. ContractNumber 1922.

Bogan, A.E. and J.M. Pierson. 1993b. Survey ofthe aquatic gastropods ofthe Cahaba River Basin, Alabama: 1992. Alabama Natural Heritage Program. Contract Number 1923.

Bogan, A.E., J.M. Pierson, andP. Hartfield. 1995. Decline in the freshwater gastropod fauna in the Mobile Bay Basin. Pp. 249-252. In: E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett,P.D. Doran, M.J. Mac (eds.). Our living Resources, a report to the Nation on the distribution,abundance andhealth of U.S. plants, animals and ecosystems. U.S. Department of Interior, National Biological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Burch, J.B. 1989. North American freshwater snails. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 365 pp.

Clench, W.J. 1962. New records of the genus Liop/ax. Occasional Papers on Mollusks. 2(27):288.

Clench, W.J. and R.D. Turner. 1955. The North American genus Liop/ax in the Family Viviparidae. Occasional Papers on Mollusks 2:1-20.

Goodrich, C. 1922. The Anculosae of the Alabama River Drainage. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University ofMichigan 7:1-57.

Goodrich, C. 1934. Studies of the gastropod family Pleuroceridae - I. Occasional Papers ofthe Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 286:1-17.

Goodrich, C. 1936. Goniobasis of the Coosa River, Alabama. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 31:1-60.

Goodrich, C. 1937. Studies of the gastropod family Pleuroceridae - VI. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 347:1-12.

100 Lydeard, C., W.E. Holznagel, J. Gamer, P. Hartfield, and J.M. Pierson. 1997. A molecularphylogeny of Mobile River drainage basin pleurocerid snails (Caenogastropoda: Cerithioidea). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 7:117-128.

Lydeard, C. and R.L. Mayden. 1995. A diverse and endangered aquatic ecosystem ofthe southeast United States. Conservation Biology 9:800-805.

Stein, C.B. 1976. Gastropods. Pp. 21-41. In: H. Boschung (ed.). Endangered and threatenedspecies of Alabama. Bulletin Alabama Museum of Natural History, No. 2.

HARPERELLA Kral, R. 1981. Notes on some “quill-leaved” umbellifers. Sida 9: 124-134.

Kral, R. 1983. Pti/imnium nodosum paper Number 258. In: Endangered and threatened plant species of the southeasternUnited States. USDA Forest Service General Report SA-GA-7.

Rose, J. N. 1911. Two new species of harperella. Contr. U.S. National Herbarium 13:289-290.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Harperella (Pti/imnwm nodosum) Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 60 pp.

KRAL’SWATER-PLANTAIN Kral, R. 1982. A New Phyllodial-leaved Sagittaria (Allsmaceae) From Alabama. Brittonia 34:12-17.

Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-related Vascular Plantsof the South. USDA, Forest Service, Technical Publication R8-TP2. 1305 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangeredand Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Threatened Status for Sagittaria secund~fo/ia (Kral’s water-plantain). Federal Register 55:13907-13911.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Kral’s Water-plantain Recovery Plan. Jackson, Mississippi. 15 pp.

Whetstone, R.D. 1988. Status Survey of Sagittaria secund~fo/ia. Provided under Contract to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 28 pp. and attachments.

101 APPENDIX F

ONGOING ENVIRONMENTALAND CONSERVATION PROGRAMS IN THE MOBILE RIVER BASIN

To improve the effectiveness ofthis recovery plan, agencies implementing the plan and entities affected by the plan shouldrecognize that several other environmental and conservation programs are underway inthe Mobile River basin. To the greatest extent possible, implementation ofthis recovery plan should be coordinated with and build upon these other ongoing programs. The five programs summarized below were presented to the Mobile River Basin Coalition (Coalition), and are examples of ongoing efforts in Alabama. Other States drainedby the Basin are conducting similar efforts to reduce nonpoint source pollution, develop and implement Best Management Practices, and manage water and associated resources.

1) Comprehensive Study of the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) and Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) River Basins, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

Due to an interstate controversy over proposed new water useprojects and increasing water demands in the ACT andACE basins, the Corps andthe States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia agreed to perform a Comprehensive Study ofwater availability, water demands, andwater management issues in the two river basins shared by these states. Because the Comprehensive Study andthe Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Plan) both address water issues in the ACT basin, there is at least a 50% overlap in the geographic coverage of the these initiatives. Also, many of the Federal and State agencies involved in the Comprehensive Study are also involved in the Coalition. Consequently, data and information developed in the Comprehensive Study may be useful in assessing species recovery management alternatives in the Mobile Basin and coordination between the Comprehensive Study and the Plan is essential for the success of both initiatives.

The two main components ofthe Comprehensive Study are i) a data repository for use in making water management decisions, and ii) demographic projections on population and employment for use in assessing future water demands. The types of information to be included in the data repository consist of water availability data from both surface and groundwater sources. The water demand assessment will identify and describe all consumptive and nonconsumptive water needs for various purposes including: agriculture, riverine and estuarine ecosystems; wetland and riparian habitats; and hydropower, municipalities, industry, navigation, recreation, and waste assimilation.

Source: Presentation by Bob Grasser, Office of Water Resources, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, at the November 30, 1995 meeting ofthe MBAERP Coalition

2) Watershed Management Program, Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)

ADEM is currently involved in aprocess to reorient its water programs to a watershed management approach. WhileADEM will continue implementing its existingregulatory programs under this approach, there will be significant changes in the implementation process. ADEM will continue to fulfill its monitoring, permitting, and inspection responsibilities, but all three ofthese activities will be carried out within a given watershed in a single year.

ADEM has delineated 14 basin management units (BMUs) in the state, eight of which are within the Mobile Basin. Within each BMU, all point source discharge permits will be scheduledto come up for renewal in the same year. During the same year that discharge permits within a BMU are up for renewal, ADENI will focus its monitoring and inspection activities in that BMU. Each BMUwill receive this coordinated and targeted attention every five years and this rotating process is referred to as the basin management cycle.

102 Although not required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this approach is consistent with EPA’s recentfocus on watershed protection and is being implemented in several other states in the southeast. Thereare several advantages to the watershed approach including: temporal integration of problem identification, assessment, and response; more efficientuse oflimited agency resources overthe long run; and increased public outreach and stakeholder involvement. The major disadvantages of this approach are associated with the transition and the implementation of the basin management cycle. ADEM hopes to complete the transition by 2001.

Source: Presentation by James Mclndoe, Chief, Water Quality Branch, Water Division, ADEM, atthe January 30, 1996 meeting ofthe MBAERP Coalition

3) Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) Program, National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

The NRCS works with individuals and local organizations to develop fanning practices that protect surface waters. Numerous agricultural BMPs have been developed and are being implemented by Alabama farmers. BMPs for managing animal wastes include the use of composting, waste lagoons, storage ponds and structures, constructed wetlands, livestock exclusions and watering facilities, runoff management, and waste utilization. Nutrients can be managed through the use of filter strips, proper timing, utilization, and application of fertilizers, riparian forest buffers, and wetland development and restoration. BMPs for pesticide use include the use of integrated pest management techniques and propertiming, utilization, and application ofpesticides. Sediment BMPs include conservation tillage, contour farming, cover crops, cropresidue management, crop rotation, diversions, field borders, irrigation water management, stream bank protection, buffer strip crops, and terraces. Farmsteadpollutants can be- managed by proper onsite sewage disposal, proper petroleum storage and handling, sealing abandoned wells, andwater well protection.

Additional infonnation on agricultural BMPs is available from the NRCS. An extensive discussion on the various types of agricultural BMIPs is available in a manual entitled “Protecting Water Quality on Alabama’s Farms” developed by the Alabama Soil & WaterConservation Committee, the AlabamaDepartment of Environmental Management, the NRCS andthe Alabama Cooperative Extension Service.

While the majority of agricultural BMPs are not mandatory, the NRCS is working to encourage voluntary application by farmers wherever appropriate. In cases where the use of agricultural BMPs is required under certain Federal fann programs, there is a 98% compliance rate. Source: Presentation by John S. Richburg, Assistant Conservationist, NRCS, at the January 30, 1996 meeting ofthe

MBAERP Coalition

4) Silvicultural Best Management Practices(BMIPs) Program, Alabama Forestry Commission (AFC)

Although the AFC is not a regulatory agency, it worked with ADEM and the forest products industry in developing silvicultural BMPs. The AFC promotes voluntary use of silvicultural BMPs through education and training efforts. Silvicultural BMPs help reduce several types ofnonpoint source pollutants including sediments, organic materials, temperature, trash, pesticides and nutrients.

In streamside management zones (35 foot buffer zones along streams and rivers), harvesting may be limited to conserve at least 50% ofthe crown cover and prevent migration of pollutants to waterways. Stream crossings can be built in a manner that minimizes water quality impacts. Forest roads canbe constructed to avoid migration of pollutants to waterways by proper location andconstruction techniques. Options forreducing areas of exposed soil in connection with timber harvesting activities include: minimizing temporary road construction, avoiding use of equipment in natural drainage areas, and keeping landing areas small. Site preparation for reforestation can be conducted to minimize pollutant migration by bedding, disking, windrowing, and planting along contour lines.

103 Proper chemical site preparation andprescribed burning will also reduce water quality impacts. Finally, certain special precautions for access, harvesting, and reforestation may be mandatory in wetland areas.

Additional information on silvicultural BMPs is available from the AFC. A comprehensive discussion on the various types of agricultural BMPs is found in a manual entitled “Alabama’s Best Management Practices for Forestry” prepared by the AFC in 1993.

The AFC has conducted surveys of voluntary compliance with the silvicultural BMP guidelines. A recent statistical survey of 400 sites in Alabama found a 92% compliance rate with these guidelines.

Source: Presentation by Tommy H. Patterson, AFC, at the January 30, 1996 meeting of the MBAERP Coalition

5) Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and MBNEP Management Conference

The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in section 320 of the Federal Clean WaterAct. The NEP focuses on unique types of water bodies called estuaries, which are formed where fresh water drains from the land and mixes with salt water from the sea. The EPA selects estuaries forthe NEP based on an applicationprepared by the local community and signed by the state governor. For selected estuaries, EPAwill provide 75% ofthe funding for athree-year program toward development of a Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP). The remaining 25% of funding must come from state and local sources. The NEP is a community-based program that is dependent on financial support from and involvement of all estuary stakeholders. Currently, 28 estuaries aroundthe country are included in the NEP.

To develop a CCMP, a Management Conference consisting of several committees is establishedto begin a three-year multi-mediaplanning process for the estuary. The Management Conference will identify and prioritize problems in the estuary, link confirmed problems to their causes, consider alternatives for addressing confinned priority problems, develop recommendations for restoring and maintaining the estuary over the long term, and prepare a CCMP forthe estuary. The CCMP is .a comprehensive document that summarizes identified problems and recommends conservation measures to address those problems. In effect, it is a blueprint for restoring and maintaining ahealthy estuary ecosystem. Although the NEPis not aregulatory program, additional or different regulations may result from implementation of recommendations in the CCMP.

The MBNEP study area currently consists of Mobile Bay and that portion of the Mobile Basin lying within Mobile and Baldwin Counties. Based on available information, several priority problems in the Mobile Bay estuary have been identified. These include: point and nonpoint source discharges, declining fish populations, shoreline erosion, poor land use management, and poor enforcementof environmental regulations.

Source: Presentation by Kathryn H. Matthews, Project Officerfor the MBNEP, Coastal Programs Section, Region IV, EPA, and Constance Alexander, Public Outreach & Education Coordinator, Coastal Programs Section, Region IV, EPA, at the January 30, 1996 meeting of the MBAERP Coalition

104 APPENDIX G

LIST OF RECIPIENTS

Mr. Pat Langan Mr. Jerry Sailors US Army COB Coosa-AL River Improvement Assoc. P.O. Box 2288 60 Commerce St. Suite 1201 Mobile, AL 36628 Montgomery, AL 36104

Ms. Margie Welch Dr. Don Hines Sierra Club, Alabama Chapter University of West Alabama P.O. Box 852102 Station One Mobile, AL 36685-2102 Livingston, AL 35470

Mr. Tom Conway Mr. John Garrett Macmillan Blodel Inc Alabama Rural Water Association P.O. Box 235016 7770 Butler Mill Road Montgomery, AL 36123 Montgomery, AL 36105

Ms. DeborahJordan Mr. Murray Lloyd Boise Cascade Corp-Southern Reg. Black Bear Conservation Committee Communications P.O. Box 52477 10626 Linkwood Court Shreveport, LA 71135 Baton Rouge, LA 70810 Mr. Jim Godwin Mr. Clayton Doherty AL Dept Conservation Oglethorpe Power Corp/ Natural Heritage Program Transmission Projects 1500 Fairview Ave. P.O. Box 1349 Montgomery, AL 36106 Tucker, GA 30085 Mr. David Lazenby Mr. Bill Irby AL River Pulp James River Corp Naheola Mill P.O. Box 100 HC66 Perdue Hill, AL 36470 Box 315 Pennington, AL 36916 Mr. Scott Oglesby CH2M Hill Daniel Bldg Suite 1105 Mr. Ray Vaughan 15 So. 20th St Wilderness Alliance Birmingham, AL 35233 3320 Wellington Rd Montgomery, AL 36106

105 Mr. PatrickByington Mr. William Satterfield AL Environmental Council Balch & Bingham Attorneys & 2717 7th Avenue S Suite 207 Counselors Birmingham, AL 35233 P.O. Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201 Mr. Don Waldon Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway Dev Dr. Mac Holmes Authority Troy State University Center For Bus. & P.O. Box 671 Econ. Service Columbus, MS 39703 102 Bibb Graves Hall Troy, AL 36082 Mr. J Donaghey J.B. Donaghey, Inc. Mr. Daniel Autrey P.O. Box 66647 Union Camp Mobile, AL 36660 100 Jensen Road Prattville, AL 36067 Dr. John Gamble Dept of Agriculture & Industries Mr. Hal Ne~an P.O. Box 3336 Boise Cascade Corp Montgomery, AL 36 130-0336 10626 Linkwood Court Baton Rouge, AL 70810 Mr. Jim Decosmo Kimberly Clark Mr. Douglas Shelton P.O. Box 2447 Barry A. Vittor & Assoc Mobile, AL 36652 2283 Crystal Key Mobile, AL 36695 Mr. Jon Hornsby AL Dept Conservation Mr. Walter Dennis Game And Fish Division International Paper P.O. Box 456 South Caroline Region Montgomery, AL 36 130-1456 P.O. Box 999 Natchez, MS 39120 Mr. John Moore Boise Cascade Corp Mr. Art Goddard Route One Box 94C US Forest Service Whatley, AL 36482 2946 Chestnut St Montgomery, AL 36107 Mr. Melvin Dixon James River Corporation Mr. David Miller HC66 Alabama Power Company Box 315 600 N 18th St. Pennington, AL 36916 Birmingham, AL 35291

106 Mr. David Long Mr. W. Phillips Alabama River Companies Malcolm Pimei Inc. P.O. Box 99 2100 First Ave N Suite 600 Perdue Hill, AL 36470 Birmingham, AL 35203

Mr. Bob Wilson Mr. Roy Kendrick Kimberly Clark Al Soil & Water Conserv. Comm. 89 Highway 333 P.O. Box 304800 Columbiana, AL 38057 Montgomery, AL 36130-4800

Mr. Don Blancher Mr. Jerry McDonald Alabama Chemical Kimberly Clark (PPRC) 1717 Old Shell Rd. 370 Old Tranimell Circle Mobile, AL 36604 Sylcauga, AL 35150

Mr. Mark Fowler Mr. Ray Albright Alabama Chemical Assoc. USDA Forest Service 2 N. Jackson St. 2946 Chestnut St Montgomery, AL 36104 Montgomery, AL 36107

Mr. Robert Reid, Jr. Ms. April Hargis 1400 Park Place Tower USDA Forest Service Birmingham, AL 35203 294 Chestnut St Montgomery, AL 36107 Mr. Duncan Powell US Environmental Protection Agency Mr. E. Byars 395 Courtland St Ne 1400 Electric System Operations Atlanta, GA 30365 Alabama Power Company P.O. Box 2641 Honorable. Richard Laird Birmingham, AL 35291 Alabama House of Representatives 531 Bonner Dr. Mr. Jimmy Huntley Roanoke, AL 36274 US Forest Service 2946 Chestnut St Mr. Ed Vamer Montgomery, AL 36107 US Army COE BWT/AL Coosa Project Office Mr. Randall Haddock 101 21st Avenue Cahaba River Society Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 2717 7th Ave S Suite 205 Birmingham, AL 35233

107 Mr. Nicholas Barchie Ms. Constance Alexander Seaport Shipping ofAlabama US EPA! Coastal Program Planning P.O. Box 2127 345 Courtland St NE Mobile, AL 36652 Atlanta, GA 30365

Mr. Tom Carruthers Mr. James Mclndoe Porter, White and Company AL Dept ofEnvironmental Management P.O. Box 12367 P.O. Box 1463 Birmingham, AL 35202-2367 Montgomery, AL 36130-1463

Mr. Steve Guy Mr. Bill Moody ALFA Farmers Federation Stewards of Family Farms P.O. Box 11000 P.O. Box 70482 Montgomery, AL 36191 Montgomery, AL 36107

Mr. Gene Hanson Mr. Matt Bowden Birmingham Water Works Balch & Bingham P.O. Box Cl 10 P.O. Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35215 Birmingham, AL 35201

Mr. Leroy Nicholson Mr. Billy Powell Kimberly Clark (PPRC) Alabama Cattlemen’s Assn. 150 Jones Drive P.O. Box 2499 Sylacauga, AL 35150 Montgomery, AL 36102

Mr. Steve Duym Ms. Martha Moore Zeneca Ag Products Union Camp Corp. P.O. Box 32 100 Jensen Rd Bucks, AL 36512 Prattville, AL 36067

Mr. Randy Abston Ms. Diane Findley James River Corp US Army COB Naheola Mill Attn: PD-El HC66 Box 315 P.O. Box 2288 Pennington, AL 36916 Mobile, AL 36628-0001

Mr. Gary Brocious Mr. Rick Oates Union Camp Corp. Alabama Forestry Assn/AL Pulp & 200 Jensen Rd. Paper Council Prattville, AL 36067 555 Alabama St. Montgomery, AL 36104

108 Mr. ChesterMcConnell Dr. Charles Lydeard* * Wildlife Management Inst. University of Alabama 110 Wildwoods Ln. Dept. ofBiological Sciences Lawrenceburg, TN 38464 P.O. Box 870344 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Mr. Michael Smith Rheem Manufacturing Co. Mr. Tim Gothard 2600 Gunter Park Drive E Alabama Forestry Commission Montgomery, AL 36109 P.O. Box 302550 Montgomery, AL 36130 Ms. Kathryn Matthews US Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Andrew Fischer Coastal Program Planning Rheem Manufacturing Co. 345 Courtland St NE 2600 Gunter Park Drive E Atlanta, GA 30365 Montgomery, AL 36109

Mr. Bruce Shupp Dr. George Crozier Bass Inc. Dauphin Island Sea Lab 5845 Carmichael Rd. P.O. Box 369-70 Montgomery, AL 36117 Dauphin Island, AL 36528

Mr. Tom Kelly Mr. Herbert Hoff P.O. Box 7050 Alabama Bass Federation Spanish Fort, AL 36577-7050 2384 County Rd 59 Prattville, AL 36067 Mr. Brian Peck US Anriy COE Mr. John Grogan P.O. Box 2288 Alabama Power Company Mobile, AL 36628 P.O. Box 2691 Birmingham, AL 3529 1-0830 Mr. Sheldon Morgan Warrior-Tombigbee Development Assn. Mr. Roger Gerth P.O. Box 2863 US Army COE Mobile, AL 36652 Attn: OP-TN P.O. Box 2288 Mr. Allen Owen Mobile, AL 36628 Mead Corporation 1000 Broad Street Mr. Bob Swint Phenix City, AL 36867 Mead Coated Board P.O. Box 940 Phenix City, AL 36868

109 Mr. Maurice James Mr. Forrest Bridges US Army Corps ofEngineers Alabama Forestry Assn. Attn: EN-HD 555 Alabama St. P.O. Box 2288 Montgomery, AL 36104 Mobile, AL 36628-0001 Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Brad McLane Alabama Power Company Alabama State Rivers Alliance P.O. Box 2641 2717 7th Ave S Suite 202 Birmingham, AL 35291 Birmingham, AL 35233 Ms. Danielle Dunbar Mr. Randy McRay Alabama Environmental Council International Paper 2717 7th Ave S Suite 207 2835 Zelda Rd. Birmingham, AL 35233 Montgomery, AL 36106 Mr. Bruce Schwenneker Ms. Riley Sikes Birmingham Water Works Business Council of Alabama Malcolm Pirnie P.O. Box 76 2100 First Ave North Suite 600 Montgomery, AL 36101 Birmingham, AL 35203

Mr. Dick Werling Mr. Carl Couret 2 Walnut Rd. USFWS Sylacauga, AL 35150 P.O. Box 1190 Daphne, AL 36525 Mr. William Lott AL Dept Environmental Management Ms. Treena Piznar 1751 Dickinson Dr. AL Chemical Association Montgomery, AL 36130 P.O. Box 99 Axis, AL 36505 Mr. Fred Harders AL Dept ofConservation Mr. Jerrel Smalley Game and Fish Division AL Water Resources Commission 64 N. Union Street 1020 Fry Gap Rd. Montgomery, AL 36130 Arab, AL 35016

Ms. Beth Young Mr. David Roberson CahabaRiver Publishing Inc. Environmental Guidance Corp. 700 28th St S Suite 204 P.O. Box 2386 Birmingham, AL 35232 Montgomery, AL 36102

110 Mr. Joe Addison Mr. Tommy Patterson Alabama Dept ofConservation Alabama Forestry Commission Game and Fish Division P.O. Box 302550 64 N. Union Street Montgomery, AL 36130-2550 Montgomery, AL 36130 Mr. Bruce Windham Mr. Marvin Glass Drummond Company Inc. Mcmillan Blodel Packaging Inc. P.O. Box 1549 P.O. Box 336 Jasper, AL 35501 Pine Hill, AL 36769 Mr. Larry Goldman Mr. John Richburg US Fish & Wildlife Service Natural Resources Conservation P.O. Drawer 1190 Service Daphne, AL 36526 P.O. Box 905 Grove Hill, AL 36451 Dr. Wayne Curtis 211 Monticello Drive Mr. Jess Weaver Troy, AL 36081 US Geological Survey Water Resources Division Mr. Tom Counts 2350 Fairlane Drive, Suite 120 USDA-NRCS Montgomery, AL 36116 P.O. Box 311 Auburn, AL 36830 Mr. Glenn Waddell Balch & Bingham Mr. Walter Cartwright P.O. Box 306 State Programs Division Birmingham, AL 35201 649 Monroe Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Mr. Robert Meintzer Geological Survey ofAlabama Mr. John Grant P.O. Box 0 Thompson Power System Tuscaloosa, AL 35486 P.O. Box 2083 Mobile, AL 36652 Mr. Roy Mcauley Union Camp Corp. Mr. Douglas Baurngartuer 100 Jenson Rd. Choctaw Nat’l Refuge Prattville, AL 36067 US Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 808 Mr. Ben Bowden Jackson, AL 36545 Westover Plantation 71 BowdenRd Eufaula, AL 36027

111 Ms. Gena Todia Mr. Steve Cauthen US Corp of Engineers (OP-TR) Soil & Water Conservation P.O. Box 2288 P.O. Box 304800 Mobile, Al 36628 Montgomery, AL 36104-4800

Mr. Richard Hanan Mr. Charlie Waldrep Loeb & Hanan Gorham & Waldrep, P.C. P.O. Drawer 23117 2101 6th Avenue North, Suite 700 Montgomery, AL 36117 Birmingham, AL 35203

Honorable. Stephen McMillan Mr. Randy Dempsey Alabama House of Representatives Dempsey, Carson & Steed, P.C. P.O. Box 337 1122 22nd Street North Bay Minette, AL 36507 Birmingham, AL 35234-2725

Mr. Willard Bowers Honorable Allen Layson Alabama Power Company Alabama House of Representatives P.O. Box 2641 P.O. Box 910 Birmingham, AL 35291 Reform, AL 35481

Ms. Jan Johnson Dr. Elise Irwin AL National Heritage Program Fish & Wildlife Coop Research 1500 E. Fairview Ave. Auburn University Massey Hall-Huntingdon College 119 Swingle Hall Montgomery, AL 36106 Auburn University, AL 36830

Mr. William Davenport Mr. Chris Oberhoister Russell Lands The Nature Conservancy 2544 Willow Point Rd. 2821-C 2nd Avenue, S. Alexander City, AL 35010 Birmingham, AL 35233

Mr. Robert Lawyer Mr. John Carey Monsanto Chemical Corporation Alabama State Docks P.O. Box 2204 P.O. Box 1588 Decatur, AL 35609 Mobile, AL 36633

Dr. John Regnier Mr. Lincoln Wahher High Point, Inc. Continental Shelf Assn. 1541 Pine Ridge Rd. 759 Parkway Street Montgomery, AL 36109 Jupiter, FL 33477

112 Mr. Art Fowler Ms. Jarel Hilton Alabama Sierra Club Alabama Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 395 1500 E. Fairview Avenue Double Springs, AL 35553 Montgomery, AL 36106-1455

Mr. J. Hall Mr. Howard Clonts Malcolm Pimie, Inc. Auburn University 2100 First Ave. N., Suite 600 Environmental Institute Birmingham, AL 36106 101 Coiner Hall Auburn University, AL 36849 Dr. Susan Rees Mobile Bay National Estuary Program Doug Fruge 440 ~iirhopeAvenue GulfCoast Fisheries! Faii: pe, AL 36532 Resource Coord. Office USFWS Mr. Walter Stevenson P.O. Box 825 ADECA, Office ofWater Resources Ocean Springs, MS 39566-0825 401 Adams Avenue Montgomery, AL 36103 Division ofEndangered Species (Mail Stop 452 ARLSQ) Dr. Doug Phillips U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service University ofAlabama Washington, D.C. 20240 P.O. Box 870340 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Project Manager (7507C) Endangered Species Protection Program Marian Renneker Office ofPesticide Programs Alabama Rivers Alliance 401 M. Street, SW 700 28th St. South Washington, D.C. 20460 Birmingham, AL 35233 Division ofRefuges Kirsten Gerhart (Mail Stop 670 ARLSQ) Alabama Environmental Council U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2717 7th Ave. South Washington, D.C. 20240 Birmingham, AL 35233 Office ofPublic Affairs Ms. Nancy Thomason (PA, 3240 MIB) Malcolm Pimie, Inc. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2100 1st Ave. N., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20240 Birmingham, AL 35203 Mr. Mark Bosch Wetlands Resources U.S. Forest Service 11100 Lawrence Road Extension 1720 Peachtree St. Fairhope, AL 36532 Atlanta, GA 30367

113 Al Sherk Bob Mount U.S.G.S./Biological Resources Division Dept. of Zool. & Wildlife Science 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Aubum University, AL 36849-5414 Mail Stop 301 Reston, VA 20192 Lamar Alexander P.O. Box 117 Dr. David Zippin, Scientific Rev. Moulton, AL 35650 Committee UT Austin Chapter, Society for Jim Williams Conservation Biology US Geological Survey The Department of Botany 7920 NW 71st St. The University of Texas at Austin Gainesville, FL 32606 Austin, TX 78713-7640 Mitzi Cole Division of Fish Hatcheries Chattahoochee National Forest (FE, Mail Stop 820 ARLSQ) 1755 Cleveland Hwy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gainesville, GA 30501 Washington, D.C. 20240 Jim Herrig Asheville Field Office Cherokee National Forest U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 2010 160 Zillicoa Street Cleveland, TN 37320 Asheville, NC 28801 Andrea Overstreet Malcolm Pierson Ogden Environmental & Energy Alabama Power Co. 6510 Morehouse Drive P.O. Box 2641 San Diego, CA 92121 Birmingham, AL 35291 Jennifer Crawford John Jenkinson Weinberg Group TVA-Division of Air & Water Resources 1220 19th St, NW Suite 300 Knoxville, TN 37902 Washington, DC 20036

Alabama Wildlife Federation Tina Monical P.O. Box 2102 Corps of Engineers Montgomery, AL 36102 P.O. Box 2946 Portland, OR 97208 Dr. Art Bogan** NC Museum of Natural Science Margaret McMillan P.O. Box 29555 Environmental Defense Fund Raleigh, NC 27626 Suite 1016 1875 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20009

114 Shirley Brant Dr. Walter Stevenson, Jr. 215 North Temple Drive ADECA, Office of Water Resources Diboll, TX 75941 401 Adkins Avenue Montgomery, AL 36103 H. Paul Friesema Institute for Policy Research Steven A. Burns Northwestern University VanNess Attorneys at Law 2040 Sheridan Road 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Evanston, IL 60208-4100 Washington, D.C. 20007-3877

Bill Peters, Director Fred Jackson Dept. OfEnvironmental Protection TetraTech, Inc. Room 644, C~irthouse 5203 Leesburg Pike. Suite 907 Birmingham, AL 35263 Falls Church, VA 22041

Ben Wigley Joseph Kaikey NCASI Geo-Marmne, Inc. P.O. Box 340362 550 East 15 Street Clemson, SC 29634-0362 Plano, TX 75074

Hugh E. (Trey) Wilson III Bill Goodran Boise Cascade Temple Inland Forest Products Corp. 307 West Industrial Road 215 North Temple Dr. Jackson, AL 36545 Dibald TX 75941

Rachel Thomas Bill Kelce Box 4637 Alabama Coal Association Huachuca City, AZ 85616 2090 Columbiana Rd, Suite 2500 Birmingham, AL 35216 Gerald George, Esq. Campbel & George, LLP Ron Smith 590 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 201 Directorate of Environment, Game Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3889 Management Building 698, 2”~ Avenue Klienschmidt Associates Ft. McClellan, AL 36205 ATTN: Paul Cyr 101 Trade Zone Drive, Suite 21 A Chris Nagano West Columbia, SC 29170 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2105 Osuna Road. NE Alan Clemons Albuquerque, NM 87113 Huntsville Times 2317 South Memorial Parkway Huntsville, AL 35801

115 Antonio Bentivoglio Dr. Richard Neves** USFWS Oregon State Office Dept. ofFish and Wildlife 2600 SE 98~ Ave., Suite 100 Virginia Polytechnic Institute Portland, OR 97266 Blacksburg, VA 24061

Joel Okula Dr. George Folkerts** Tombigbee National Forest Dept. ofZoology and Wildlife Science Hwy 15 5., Rural Route 1, Box 98A Auburn University Ackerman, MS 39735 Auburn, AL 36849-5414

Sam Hodges Dr. David Stansbery do Newhouse News Service Museum of Zoology 1101 Connecticutt Ave., NW The Ohio State University Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43210 Washington, DC 20036 Melvin Warren, Jr. Jon Ponstein Forest Hydrology Laboratory Birmingham Water Works Board P.O. Box 947 P.O. Box 830110 Oxford, MS 38655 Birmingham, AL 35283-0110 District Engineer Jamie Clark US Army Corp ofEngineers ADECA-Office ofWater Resources P.O. Box 2288 401 Adams Avenue Mobile, AL 36628 Montgomery, AL 3610 Robert Hatcher Mike Zupko Tennessee Wildlife Res. Agency Georgia Forestry Association P.O. Box 40747 505 Pinnacle Court Ellington Agricultural Center Norcross, GA 30071 Nashville, TN 37204

Beth Fraser Gary Myers 2887 Alabama Highway Executive Director, Wildlife Resources Rome, GA 30165 Agency P.O. Box 40747 Dr. Fred Thompson Nashville, TN 37204 Florida Museum of Natural History Gainesville, FL 32611 Mr. Ned Mudd, Jr. P.O. Box 130411 Bill Dryden Birmingham, AL 35213 Boise-Cascade Corp. P.O. Box 50 Boise, ID 83707

116 Natural Resources Conservation Service Chuck Coomer 100 West Capitol St. Georgia Dept. ofNatural Resources Jackson, MS 39269 Game and Fish Division 2070 U.S. Hwy. 278, SE Ken Tenneson Social Circle, GA 30279 Tennessee Valley Authority Office Service Annex lB Dr. Sam Polles Musch Shoals, AL 35660 MS Dept. ofWildlife, Fisheries, & Parks P.O. Box 451 Leig n McDougall Jackson, MS 39205 U.S. i Aest Service 110 Southpark Dr. Randy Haddock Blacksburg, VA 24060 Cahaba River Society 2717 7k” Avenue South, Suite 207 Mr. Riley Boykin Smith Birmingham, AL 35233 Dept. ofConservation and Natural Resources Mrs. Myrt Jones 64 N. Union St. The Mobile Bay Audubon Society Montgomery, AL 36130 Box 9903 Mobile, AL 36691-9903 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation 401 Church St., L & C Tower Annex Nashville, TN 37243

Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service 1720 Peachtree Rd., NW Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30367

Mr. Joe Turner, Commissioner Georgia Department of Natural

Resources ** PEER REVIEWERS 205 Butler St., Floyd Towers East Atlanta, GA 30334

Birmingham Chamber ofCommerce Attn: Envir. Economics Committee P.O. Box 10127 Birmingham, AL 35202

117 APPENDIX H

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE 1998 DRAFT MOBILE RIVER BASIN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY PLAN

National Council ofthe Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement: Comment: “In general, we found the draft plan to be quite positive with a strong emphasis on an approach (voluntary collaboration) that likely will be successful. We have identified several opportunities to further improve the draft plan...”

A. It is not reasonable to recommend alternatives to chlorine treatment of wastewater (Task 1.52) without documentation that chlorine actually causes detrimental long-term effects on aquatic organisms.

Service Response: The toxicity of chlorine and other wastewater derivatives are well- documented, however, long-term chronic effects of diluted discharges are poorly understood. The Recovery Plan recommends consideration of available alternatives in sensitive watersheds.

B. It is most appropriate for silvicultural operations to use Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) recommendations from State Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) rather than recommendations by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (Task 3.2).

Service Response: We agree. Task 3.2 promotes the value of SMZs to buffer the impacts of all land use activities. It is noted that there are multiple source recommendations for SMZs to address specific land uses, however. NRCS recommendations were highlighted because of the wide range in buffer width, and the influence of soil, slope, and topography in determining width and restrictions.

C. Without documentation it is inappropriate to contend that recent gains in implementing pollution control measures may have been negated by increases in the number of discharges (p. 14, POLLUTION).

Service Response: The referenced statement is confined to some stream/river segments. In the paragraph following the referenced statement, a study on the Cahaba River is cited (Shepard et al. 1996) that documented the cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff and wastewater plant discharges on imperiled species in the Cahaba River. This study also noted that at low discharges, the flowin the River for a distance below Birmingham, Alabama, consists almost entirely of treated effluents.

118 D. The document should increase emphasis on factors unrelated to habitat, such as host fish for mussels and introduced species.

Service Response: The primary factors in the decline of aquatic species in the Basin, and the primary threats to their continued existence, have been habitat modification, loss, and fragmentation. Furthermore, potential effects offactors such as host fish losses or competition from introduced species are often due to, ormagnified by, habitat changes, habitat fragmentation, or habitat isolation.

E. Watershed management should consider ongoing cooperative efforts such as the Alabama Demonstration Watershed Project.

Service Response: The Plan’s Appendix F promotes coordinating efforts and gives examples ofongoing environmental and conservation programs. The Plan supports cooperative stewardshlp efforts such as theAlabama Demonstration Watershed Project.

F. Recovery efforts should focus on rewarding landowners who have maintained habitat integrity and on improving habitat integrity where it is degraded.

Service Response: There are no current programs to reward landowners for maintaining habitat integrity. However, even if such programs are developed, given the scope of effort needed to recover the Basin, we will have to rely primarily on voluntary actions. Therefore, the Plan promotes voluntary watershed stewardship by landowners and communities, not just in pristine watersheds, but also in degraded watersheds to maintain and/or improve aquatic habitat quality.

Robert Reid, Jr., on behalf of the Alabama Audubon Council, Alabama Environmental Council, Cahaba River Society, and Alabama Ornithological Society: Comment: “We believe (the Recovery Plan) is a step forward in consolidating and making more efficient the handling of recovery plans for listed species under the Endangered Species Act and will provide a pattern for future watersheds. (We would) appreciate consideration of the following:”

1) Future listed aquatic species should be incorporated into this Plan.

Service Response: Since the draft Recovery Plan was released in 1998, an additional seven aquatic species, six snails and the Alabama sturgeon, have received protection under the Act. The Act and implementing regulations provide a process to develop recovery plans for listed species, which includes public review and comment. In the near future, we will develop an addendum to the Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan, which will include specific recovery criteria for the six snails, and make it available for public review and comment. An additional recovery plan will be developed

119 specifically for the Alabama sturgeon. In the interim, these seven species are directly benefitted by the actions implemented through the Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan and are included in this final plan.

2) Recently used common names should be used for Locks and Dams.

Service Response: Current officially recognized names are used in the Recovery Plan map and Table 6.

3) Recovery task 3.2 should give more examples of Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) width recommendations.

Service Response: There are numerous SMZ width recommendations within the four States covered by the recovery plan. SW widths vary with land use activity, soil, topography, and landowner management objectives. The permutations resulting from these factors are more numerous than can be reasonably enumerated. Therefore, the Recovery Plan highlights NRCS recommendations as an example because ofthe wide range in buffer width, and refers landowners to industrial, State, and other BMP recommendation sources. The narrative for this recovery task has been slightly modified to reflect this.

4) Walleye in the Basin should be referred to as Southern walleye, since there is evidence that it is a unique genetic strain.

Service Response: This has been incorporated into the final recovery plan.

Chester McConnell, WildlifeManagement Institute, Lawrenceburg, Tennessee:

Comment: “I find the plan to be exceptionally well done. It clearly and simply spells out . . .the status of the threatened and endangered species and what actions are necessary to recover and manage the current populations. The Wildlife Management Institute...strongly supports the draft plan.”

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Mobile, Alabama Comment: Language in recovery tasks 1.1 and 2.1 could be interpreted to require mitigation in navigable rivers should they meet certain criteria. Language should be modified to exempt existing authorized navigable rivers and harbors from this recommendation.

Service Response: Recovery plans are advisory documents and do not obligate individuals or agencies to undertake any specific task. Identification oftasks within a recovery plan does not impose any additional legal responsibilities to an agency beyond existing authorities. In this instance, the Plan discusses mitigation as opportunities to avoid, reduce, or compensate

120 for adverse impacts. This could be for future projects, or for past projects where feasible. A good example of mitigation in a navigable river is the 1998 cooperative effort by the Mobile District, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Alabama Department ofConservation and Natural Resources to avoid and minimize (mitigate) potential impacts from their navigation maintenance dredging program in the Alabama River. In consideration of the advisory nature ofrecovery plans, and ongoing mitigation measures, there is no reason to exclude any specific or general areas from this recommendation.

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA Comment: “The revised Plan is well written, and we concur with the recovery objectives and tasks. We especially like the Plan’s emphasis on community involvement in watershed management and restoration.”

U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Jackson, MS Comment: “The Plan was very professional and contained a wealth of information. Our awareness ofthe conditions ofthe ecosystem has been expanded as a result of having seen the plan. We will keep the document for reference as we continue to improve our conservation efforts.”

121 PART V

PLATES

Endangered and Threatened Mollusks ofthe Mobile River Basin Mussels and the Tulotoma Snail

122 a

C PLATE I d 1cm a. Inflated heelsplitter, Powimilus inflaws b. Upland combshell, Epioblasma metasti-jata c. Southern combshell, Epioblasma penita d. Tulotoma snail, Tulo~’oma magnzfica

1 23 ICrr\

1cm

PLATE 2 a. Fine-lined Docketbook, Lampsilis altiZis b. Orange-nacre mucket. Larnpsilisperovalis

124 .-~-- II 1C~T~~

1cm

PLATE 3 a. Coosa moccasinshelL Medionidus parvulus b. Alabama moccasinshell, Medionidus acutissimus c. Stirrupshell, Quadrula stapes

125 lc.m

I 2. c~r~

PLATE 4

a. Flat pigtoe, Pieurobema marshaiZi b. Heavy pigtoe, Pleurobema taitianum

126

” -~ ‘I 1cm A

1cm

PLATE 5 a. Dark pigtoe, Pleurobemafurvum b. Southern pigtoe. Pleurobemageorgianum c. Triangular kidneyshell, Ptychobranchus greeni

127 1cm a

I cm b

1Crr~

PLATE 6 a. Southern clubshell, P/eurobe ma decisum b. Ovate clubsheTh P/eurobemaperovatum c. Black clubshell, P/eurobema c-w-tum

128